User talk:Binksternet/Archive28

Happy New Year Binksternet!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Binksternet: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

I am confused

Hi Binksternet! Sorry to bother you again, but I found the oddest editing at Doctor of Divinity. There's piles of anon. changes, which seem fine, and a section has been added named "List Doctor of Divinity" which has the strangest contents. I really don't know where to start with this one, the anon. editor has made dozens of changes, I don't know if some or all of them are good or not. I'd appreciate your read on it! Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The offending section was removed by somebody else. Those IPs are all from the Burgundy region of France, so they are likely the same person. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Binksternet!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Binksternet: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 10:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

A personalized New Year greeting

Hope you have a bright 2014! Acalamari 14:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, Happy New Year! It's been good to help you deal with sockpuppets for the past couple of months or so; I hope I can be of further help to you. :) Best. Acalamari 14:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! I hope your New Year is prosperous and fulfilling. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Argolla.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nazi Germany map

Hello, you can simply add that map to another area of the article that deals with geography while the main location file would be the orthographic projection. Now with the one you decided to keep, that is on the Territorial evolution article, which in the geography section of Nazi Germany people can read, so I highly suggest we use orthographic projection. Then you also do not see other articles like Nazi Germany with a map like that--Micronationalist1999 (talk) Hi 19:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The orthographic projection makes Germany look too small, when the reality was that Germany was very dangerous and powerful at its height. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, it does not matter if it looks small, it is suppose too, geesh what do you want Nazi Germany to be large on a globe, what would you expect, countries look small on a globe.--Micronationalist1999 (talk) Hi 17:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The globe image does not help the reader understand how influential was Nazi Germany. It minimizes the size, even though the topic is about the danger. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Neither does the globe image on other pages but at least they learn it by quote on quote, "reading" the whole subject, afterall Wikipedia is for reading, not looking at a pretty picture and guessing how influential a place is. --Micronationalist1999 (talk) Hi 22:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The expression is "quote/unquote", not "quote on quote". Your wish to have an orthographic image has been rejected by the editors at that article. If you really want it there, you should start a WP:Request for comment on the article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It has not been rejected by any other editor except yourself because you think you are correct in your actions. --Micronationalist1999 (talk) Hi 13:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits involving this issue and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." I'm going to give the actual answer this one purely on a procedural basis, then offer my opinion. Per this section of the Consensus policy, when an edit is made to an established part of an article and another editor objects then — barring some policy which requires the edit to be made — the result will be that the proposed edit will not be made unless consensus can be reached to make the edit. The non-orthographic map had been on the article map for a very long time prior to Micronationalist's edit so, now that an objection has been raised, consensus must be achieved to change the map. The status at this time is no consensus and, thus, no change. Having said that, and reminding everyone that opinions expressed in Third Opinions do not "count" towards consensus, I believe that the non-orthographic map is preferable even though it is true that orthographic maps are ordinarily used in other similar articles in this instance. (And let me note in that regard that, saving a policy or guideline requiring uniformity that every article at Wikipedia stands on its own; uniformity is in general a good thing, but isn't mandatory.) This map avoids any arguments over whether occupied areas should or should not be included within the area identified as Nazi Germany and is preferable for that reason.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 14:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Thank you for taking the time to examine the issue. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Lyon

User:Gloss does that sort of thing all the time. He and I have redirected articles in the past without any prior consensus. Does it really have to be done on every article? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Any article turned into a redirect, with the redirect disputed, requires an AFD to restore the redirect. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So consensus is only needed whenever it is disputed. Is that correct? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's go through the steps:

• 1) You decide to turn an article into a redirect.
• 2) Someone reverts you, restoring the article.
• 3) You start an "article for deletion" discussion, per instructions found at WP:AFD.

That's it! No edit warring, no back and forth, no accusations, no WP:ANI, no drama. People weigh in on whether the article should be kept or redirected. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Austrian economics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Better source request for File:B-52s chopped.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:B-52s chopped.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Survivor redirects

If you feel that way about Kim Spradlin, can we possibly try to get the Russell Hantz article revived? He has plenty of notability on Survivor and beyond, yet his article got redirected anyway for "notability" issues. I see no reason to keep Kim Spradlin, while leaving Hantz in the garbage. Any thoughts? Oh and BTW, I didn't mean to make it sound like the issue was "all about you" in that discussion. I apologize if I offended you :) Survivorfan1995 (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have kept this article, but the AFD discussion strangely ended up as redirect, even though there were good arguments for keeping it. Hantz was on three Survivor series in 2009, 2010 and 2011, but he was also accused in 2011 of leaking secrets about the show. He was on Flipped Off in 2012, and he has been in the news by being arrested twice: for battery in 2010, and for drunk driving in 2012. He has persistence and wide media coverage.

FYI, not one television series has been watched in my house for about two decades. The only TV stuff that has been seen in my house is a couple of Olympics and the occasional presidential inauguration. When USA TV went digital in 2009, I gave it up completely. I have never watched a Survivor episode all the way through, not even once. You might say I'm particularly objective about this stuff, having no preconceived notions. Binksternet (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, is there any possible way, any possible way, to get that Hantz' article back without getting in trouble? If there is, I'm all in! Survivorfan1995 (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Lemme look into it. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I believe it was his brother arrested for drunk driving, not him. But yeah, I still think Russell should have his own article. He's still notable regardless. Thanks for agreeing to help me get it up and going again! If we can get it going, I know plenty of stuff about him to contribute to it. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've got the article over at my sandbox if you'd like to look at it more. Got any suggestions about how it could be improved? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wait a second. Could you be a little more specific as to why "spouse" doesn't belong in the infobox? I don't understand. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm. At Template:Infobox person, there used to be an instruction saying to keep the the spouse and relatives parameters empty unless they have a Wikipedia biography. The template does not say that now. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said on my edit summary comment, I think the way to keep the article from getting deleted is to emphasize the Flipped Off role, to show the persistence of his career. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I've still got a few more tweaks to do on the lead section and the stuff about his personal life and business career (which shouldn't take much longer), but I'm having a really tough time expanding the Flipped Off section like you suggested. It's tough when the only info is stuff like this, this, this, and this. They're obviously credible sources, but there's not much encyclopedic info to use. Do you happen to have any more ideas or suggestions on how I could make this better? I'm stuck! Survivorfan1995 (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, give me a day or two and I'll look for more sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know

The IP editing Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is banned User:Iloveandrea, who has probably used at least two different IPs since he quit creating sockpuppet accounts. The article was, and is, one of his most-edited pages.2602:30A:2ECA:C150:7CA0:A14D:52B1:8BB2 (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Morning zoo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KFMB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about capitalization of parenthetical subtitles of songs

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Capitalization_of_song_parenthetical_subtitles. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Morning zoo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 9, 1985 |volume=97 |number=10 |issn=0006-2510 |publisher=Nielsen Business Media}}</ref> [[KFMB-FM}KFMB]] in [[San Diego, California]], by late 1984,<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://books.google.com/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the problem is.

Frankly your blanket undoing of my edits and knee-jerk threats make me wonder if your editing previldges shouldn't be revoked. It seems like edit warring or at least disruptive editing.

You claim I added unsourced material even for Carl Ballantine. Excuse me but I gave the source of his parents which was his Chicago birth record and gave the source where it can be found. I added the name to the Monkees episode that a previous contributer failed to provide, thus giving a source to the existing statement that he was on the show (but you didn't delete what they wrote). What's the source? The episode itself. It is recorded media. The same is true of The Shakiest Gun in the West. Carl Ballantine's name is even listed as part of the cast in the Wikipedia page of the movie (and just as valid or invalid where Wikipedia is concerned).

For Edson Stroll, the Social Security Death Index gives his middle name as Roy. The birth and death dates match perfectly. I didn't cite it because it was just his middle name I was adding. As for the rest about his real name possibly being Edward Stroll (which was ALL I was saying leaving it for others to prove conclusively). Okay, fair enough, all you had to do is say you have a problem with it and ask me to remove it rather than giving me a warning about my editing privileges being revoted.

As for my edits of Jack Benny, the recordings of his show back up what I claim. You even undid the fact that I added "Gravel voiced" in front of Eddie Anderson. It was what he was famous for. Or do you still think adding these two words still needs to be referenced by itself? BTW it's even mentioned on his own Wikipedia webpage. You also removed what I added about Rodney Dangerfield. That name is mentioned as a character in quite a few recordings of the Jack Benny Show. It's also mentioned in the Wikipedia webpage for the comic Rodney Dangerfield who took his name from that very character (which is mentioned in his Wikipedia webpage).

But if all "unsourced" material must be removed from Wikipedia then start by removing the paragraphs (the entire paragraphs) on Jack Benny's Wikipedia webpage that I had edited. I couldn't find any source for what was posted in most of the paragraphs on that page. Then you can go through dozens and dozens of webpages in Wikipedia and remove them wholesale making threats along the way (rather than asking for verification).

Frankly your blanket undoing (twice in one case) of several of my unrelated edits seemed more vindictive than any concern for unsourced or incorrect information. I understand the need for verification and factuality, but what you did doesn't seem to have much to do with "getting it right". Tim Gruber (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

My beef with you is that you are adding material to articles which has not been published before. Such edits are disallowed by the ironclad policy of WP:No original research. If you read that policy you will see that much of Wikipedia's articles about Jack Benny, McHale's Navy, Hogan's Heroes and so on are also unsourced. These articles were largely written in the early days of Wikipedia when the "no original research" policy was not strictly enforced. These sections should be trimmed down to conform to WP:NOR, or backed by published works. You are not helping when you add whole sections of unreferenced text, such as this controversy section you put into the Hogan's Heroes article. Same with paragraphs of personal analysis such as this material you added to the McHale's Navy article.

If you continue to add material to Wikipedia as if the WP:NOR policy did not exist, as if it was still the Wild West days of Wikipedia, I predict you will be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

By published do you mean recorded media? If you cannot use recorded media and must rely solely on published printed sources then that is like saying you cannot use the movie 'Gone With the Wind" as a source for the fact that Clark Gable was in the movie and must rely on a book or article written about the movie. Frankly that is an asinine standard especially when some facts have not been published in some book like who Carl Ballatine’s parents were. It is also not a standard held by the legal profession. No court in this country would take written sources about say a movie over the content of the movie itself (and where did those published sources get their information, from the movie itself). The information I sourced for Carl Ballantine’s parents would be accepted in any court and can be verified by anyone. In fact it would be accepted over most other sources especially something like a newspaper article which are notorious for having mistakes (but acceptable as a source by Wikipedia standards). Besides I’ve seen written books and articles that were just wrong including one I used as a source for Hogan’s Heroes. But isn’t it funny how Wikipedia accepts as sources articles and information written pretty much the same way I did it from other websites like www.imdb.com (if it doesn’t you have your job cut out for you having the material and sources removed including in the Wikipage about the movie The Shakiest Gun in the West that lists Carl Ballantine as part of the cast).

Yes, I’ve made edits and added material to Hogan’s Heroes, etc. I’ve also added in which episodes those things can be found and anyone who disputes the information can check the recorded media to verify or disprove the statements made (but by your standard nearly the entire Wikipage about Hogan’s Heroes would have to be deleted including stuff I never wrote). As far anything that I've written that cannot be verified by watching the shows I welcome verification and the editing of anything that needs improvement (as opposed outright deleting).

And isn’t it interesting how you have targeted my edits and know which ones I have made. I wasn’t sure how much I wanted to keep up my interest in Wikipedia but if this is the crap I have to put with you can keep Wikipedia and your asinine standards that even most college professors won’t accept. I’ll stick to where people want to get it right and have good information for people to read rather than play website Nazi.Tim Gruber (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Check out the guideline here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. The TV episodes themselves can be used to add details to the articles, but secondary sources should be used in combination with primary sources to establish a relation to the real world. The guideline says "Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia: avoid original research." Of course, 'original research' is totally required outside of Wikipedia, for instance by authors, journalists and scholars. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

On that basis Wikipedia would be only a fraction of what it is. Take for example Hogan’s Heroes. Remove all of what you say is 'original research' and the page would be chopped down to a handful paragraphs for the entire series which would reveal very little about the series and the people in it (I’d say at least 90% of the page would be totally gone including nearly all of the information about the characters). Some things about a series like that have not been published in written form particularly the historical inaccuracies. Most books about series like this usually deal with more trivial stuff like whether Colonel Klink wore his monocle while he slept (besides where did they get most of the information about the series, by watching the series). The same is true of a lot of stuff on Wikipedia and many of the articles would look like the old hardcover Encyclopedia Britannica entries in which only short condensed information about the subject is provided.

Start by writing the information and then improve, improve and improve. Add references and make corrections as you go along. Adding only what has been published in written form and only by some author, journalist or scholar is fine if you only want are authors, journalists and scholars using Wikipedia rather than seeing it as a source for everyone to learn about a subject. And if all anyone can find on Wikipedia is what was published in written form elsewhere and is online why bother with Wikipedia at all. Go read the original writing rather than a modified form of which often was rewritten and abridged simply to avoid copyright prohibitions. Hell, you could turn Wikipedia into a website with nothing but links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Gruber (talk • contribs) 12:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright note

Hi, this happened a long time ago so hopefully you understand of copyright and the interaction with wikipedia is a lot better now. But just in case, I should mention that the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence is incompatible with wikipedia's requirement for CC BY-SA compatibility. Both the NC and ND clauses, or any similar clauses in other licences ensure this.

This means that material copied from any external sites and releases under such a licence are a WP:Copyvio, the same as if the material is from a commercial work under a proprietary licence. Such copyvios should be removed, unless the material is a limited quotation or otherwise allowed under the limited non free content that we allow.

I'm mentioning this because of your comments Talk:The Vampire Diaries (novel series)#Theft of work from wiki.vampire-diaries.net as the licence you linked to was CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 (and a check of the source site appears to confirm the licence) but you suggested that using the material here was okay. (The material itself appears to be gone, I think it was remove due to sourcing and other such concerns.) As I mentioned above this was a long time ago and I'm not trying to cause you grief, but since I consider compliance with copyright very important, I wanted to make sure know in case you still don't.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, it seems you were right when you said "Retrohead, I don't think we are done here". Anyway, I wanted some help with paraphrasing the sentence "Killing is My Business... and Business Is Good! received strong reviews, not only in metal-oriented publications, but also in mainstream music magazines." I copied that from Allmusic, but I'm afraid that since the article is a GA nominee, I'll have to address this issue sooner or later. So, your help will be very appreciated.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I flipped the text around for you. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it always good to have a little chit chat with an editor with good sense of humor. And the name is Rattlehead, lol. Cheers and everything the best in 2014.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, man. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Warren article

I'm concerned about the Elizabeth Warren article that you worked on for a GA. You many remember that it took many months of discussion to find a compromise on the amount of copy devoted to the campaign issue about her Native American heritage. She had stated Native American lineage in a law directory used for hiring and Harvard then listed her as N.A. for years (to show that they were attempting to hire affirmative action instructors). We finally got it down to a para in the Senate run section till a couple of weeks ago an editor decided it needed to again have its own lengthy section. I don't feel that its appropriate for her bio, but I'm outnumbered and have been unable to make any progress with my hopes of returning to the stable version. Perhaps one solution would be to move the lengthy section to United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 (which was suggested by MastCell on my talk page) where it would be more appropriate, and move the very reasonable para from that article to the Warren article. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

PS: Do you like fado? Mariza and Amália Rodrigues? Gandydancer (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look at the new difficulties at the Warren bio.

Regarding fado, I love that kind of music. I have one album of Amália Rodrigues and every time she sings loud there is annoying distortion, so I'm mad at the people who produced the recording, but of course the beauty of Amália is beyond all that. Binksternet (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Duane E. Tressler

This is becoming troublesome. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked for a Level 4 user warning which said something about adding too much detail, but there is no such thing. The guy keeps ruining the sleek reading flow with dumps of detail. I don't know what drives him, but it is not helping the reader to have a good experience. Binksternet (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

About the edits regarding David Irving's page.

I just received your message about some edits I made to the page regarding David Irving.

"Hello, I'm Binksternet. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to David Irving seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now."

Honestly, the only reason it may have seemed less than neutral to you, was because I was removing attacks on Irving, who is a controversial figure. The attacks said that he was a Holocaust denier. Now whether or not Irving is a reputable historian can be up for debate. However, saying he's a Holocaust denier is flat-out wrong, and in no way debatable. In his book, Hitler's War, he talks about the Holocaust. He blatantly says Heinrich Himmler gave the orders to liquidate Jews in Eastern Europe, which were carried about by the SS. Yes, he does say that for most of the Holocaust, Hitler was unaware that these liquidations were going on. So he may have some non-mainstream views on the Holocaust, but he is most certainly not saying it didn't happen. If anything, he can be called a revisionist.

I agree that Wikipedia should be a place for neutrality. And if that's the case, then many of the articles about David Irving should be edited. The only people saying Irving is a Holocaust denier are either people who haven't read his work, or people who simply don't like him on a personal level. If you still disagree, I encourage you to read Hitler's War. Even if you disagree with Irving, you will surely see that he never once says the Holocaust didn't happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.166.5 (talk • contribs)

"Holocaust denial" includes biased attempts to diminish the number of Jews killed. Irving is guilty of this. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Irving's views shift considerably over his career. 'Holocaust denier' seems to be a fair description of his later views. See [1].TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite! Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Austrian economics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Rane Corporation

Hi Binksternet,

My name is Shaun Whitcher and I work for Rane Corporation. I am updating the Wiki page on behalf of Rane. Is the work I performed today lost?

Best Regards,

Shaun Whitcher Rane Corporation 10802 47th AVE W. Mukilteo, WA. 98275 T: 425-355-6000 --Shaunpinn (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Shaun. I like Rane and I am not trying to mess up the company's Wikipedia article. Your work today was faulty so I removed it. The problem—a big one—was that you copied and pasted text from Rane's website directly into the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia cannot host this kind of text without Rane signing a release to give the text to the public domain. Even then, the best way to get the concepts into Wikipedia is to rewrite the text in a very spare manner appropriate to an encyclopedia, using the Rane website as a reference. A better way to expand the article would be to find WP:Secondary sources which talk about Rane, sources such as newspaper and magazine articles. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Tell Steve Macatee Bink says 'hi'. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

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) 13:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to undo my edits without giving proper explanation, as you have done at Elise_Andrew, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. wormatic (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If you keep trying to slog Elise Andrew with edits like this and this, you will not last long on Wikipedia. Please follow the WP:NPOV guideline. If you are here just to put down Elise Andrew then you are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to be factual and not to be used as a tool for advertisement. You are in close association with the subject, and therefore, your disruptive editing and no interest in working collaboratively is not appreciated in Wikipedia. wormatic (talk) 5:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm in close association with Elise Andrew? That's news to me. Binksternet (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring Murphy etc.

Bink, please consider stepping back from the Murphy mess. What's the point of getting into a multiple revert situation with the comment "edit warring must stop"? I needn't say more. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk page consensus is clear, yet Steeletrap removed the agreed-upon text. That's the edit warring behavior. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a mess. It doesn't matter who's "right" at this point. It needs to stop steaming before we touch it again. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I notice that you have not asked your friend Steeletrap to step back. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll try again: The reason I posted to you and not to Steeletrap is that, unless I'm mistaken, she was doing a first revert of a recent "bold" addition and that you appeared to undo the revert precipitously and with a dismissive edit summary without "discussion" on talk. So you appeared to be edit-warring with a summary "don't edit war". If I misread the sequence, then shame on me. I would say, however, that Steeletrap is no more my "friend" than CMDC is yours. It's really civil to assert that an editor would base actions here on "friendship" rather than policy or content concerns. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Interested in a GA?

Would you be interested in reviewing the 2012 Delhi gang rape article for a GA? I think it's in pretty good shape and there are several good editors that I think would be willing to help. Khazar2 was going to do it but quite out of the blue he quit Wikipedia. There is a short discussion on the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. It's been too long since I helped reduce the GAN backlog. I have never edited the article so I'm eligible to review the GAN. I did comment on the article talk page last year but that's not enough to disqualify. I really hate the tragic subject matter so it will probably make me a hard reviewer. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Martineau

Could you please check the references fro 1)Martineau family 2)James Martineau 3) Philip Greenhow Martineau

I am not good at doing this so thanks very much in advance Cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.17.244 (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you have asked several people to look at these. I'll wait to see if someone else picks it up. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

AN/EW time in Murphy article?

Per this talk page entry I just put in where I warned on edit warring over yet another removal of Capitol Theory section and mentioned your edit warring warning. Is it time to do a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? I haven't done them much besides 3rr myself so thought I'd check. Will alert you if I do it and please alert me if you get there first. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I will look at that. Maybe there's a case. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's much of a case, but it's kind of hard to read with long strings of rapid editing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap just reverted another one. If you are familiar with the material, it is easier to see.

Why have a rule vs. reverting your material back over and over after different editors remove it for good reason if there's no way to report repeated incidents in a few days. Even though another admin recently again urged me to go to ANI on BLP issues, I am reluctant. And it was after that urging that another editor went to ArbCom, which I'd assumed you knew about, but maybe not.

I also have added last two reverts here to list of Murphy reverts at ArbCom that 2 other editors previously had alluded to. Might add this last one if necessary, though I think the pattern is pretty firmly established there by now. But will they bother to do anything about it in timely matter?

Hmmm, maybe WP:BLPN is better place to go with both the repeatedly reverted bad (or neutral) info and the new negative WP:OR primary sourced material. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap self-reverted, so that last problem is gone. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The only case is the difficult one of long-term disruptive edit warring against consensus.

• revert Jan 15 at 18:27, removing Capital Theory material.
• Revert Jan 15 at 18:31, regarding CPI bet, re-introducing DeLong blog BLP vio.
• revert Jan 15 at 21:23, removing Capital Theory material.
• revert Jan 15 at 21:25, restoring Murphy blaming Obama.
• revert Jan 16 at 22:33, restoring DeLong blog BLP vio.
• revert Jan 17 at 16:35, removing Capital Theory material.
• revert Jan 19 at 15:30, restoring Murphy blaming Obama.
• revert Jan 19 at 15:31, removing Capital Theory material.

It looks like there was a serious flurry of reverts on the 15th, but an argument can be made that the four separate reverts were just components of two reverting sequences or sessions. A real problem is the continued removal of Capital Theory stuff even though the talk page consensus supports it. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Consider adding the diff of your analysis above to the ArbCom. I'm embarrassed to go back again... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Carol, please note that the above could be reasonably construed as WP:Canvassing, given how you are attempting to induce Bink (an editor congenial to your view of the cause of the Austrian wars) to provide diffs supporting your claims. Steeletrap (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing happened here, people, nothing to see. The diff is not mine, and it is not Carol's: it is a Steeletrap diff showing Steeletrap reversions. When the ArbCom case goes to its evidence phase I may opt to compile some Steeletrap diffs for consideration. Until then, this matter is closed. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Edits

Hi, I added a citation that described the organization ALEC as a group of "libertarian" state legislators that uses identical language to the articles that refer to them as a "conservative" group, yet mine was removed and the conservative one stayed. Clearly they are both since numerous independent articles refer to them with both labels, so the main page article should reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregJohnson1 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The sources calling ALEC libertarian are mostly not WP:Reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards. You can see blogs and forums like Reddit talking about ALEC as libertarian, and only one good source, a newsblog article by David Weigel for Slate: "ALEC: The Libertarian Powerhouse that No One Covers". Against this the sources calling ALEC conservative are much more numerous, and more reliable than Reddit, forums and blogs:

• The Atlantic: "Exposing ALEC: How Conservative-Backed State Laws Are All Connected"
• NPR: "How ALEC Serves As A 'Dating Service' For Politicians And Corporations" ("'ALEC is like an incubator of predominantly conservative legislation,' Guardian correspondent Ed Pilkington tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross.")
• Huffington Post: "Big Corporations Abandoning Conservative Group That Pushes Changes in State Laws "
• Slate: "Conservatives' Improbable New 'Convention of States' Project"
• Bill Moyers: "North Carolina’s Conservative Shift Good for ALEC"
• Mother Jones: "Conservative Group ALEC in 1985: S&M Accidents Cause 10 Percent of San Francisco's Homicides"
• The Guardian: "State conservative groups plan US-wide assault on education, health and tax"
• The New York Times: "Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist"
• The Guardian: "ALEC calls for penalties on 'freerider' homeowners in assault on clean energy" ("Documents reveal conservative group's anti-green agenda")
• Raleigh News-Observer: "Private conservative group ALEC carries sway in legislature"
• The Washington Post: "ALEC has tremendous influence in state legislatures. Here’s why." ("Last week, hundreds of state legislators, representatives of major international corporations and conservative policy experts gathered in Washington for a meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)... Unsurprisingly, conservatism matters: states with more conservative governments were more likely to pass ALEC bills.")
• The Progressive: "Inside the ALEC Dating Service" ("I really thought it would take more than five minutes in New Orleans before I realized the conservative movement had landed there... Corporations and conservative interests are in charge; after all, they fund the organization. They call the shots. They write the legislation. They vote on the legislation. And they give advice on how to pass their bills.")
• MinnPost: "Flurry of photo ID laws tied to conservative ALEC group "
• The Nation: "ALEC Opposed Divestment From South Africa’s Apartheid Regime" ("This is the inherent difference between right-leaning organizations and their counterparts on the left. Large corporations view their right-wing giving as a strong return on investment. For almost every major conservative issue campaign, at least on economic policy, the wealthy and powerful ultimately benefit, meaning their donations to groups like ALEC and their cohorts are well-served... During the course of my research on how the conservative movement rebuilt itself in the aftermath of the 2008 elections, I found myself digging through many historical files that show this dynamic repeating itself like an endless feedback loop... For more on how the recent history of the conservative movement, including the role of ALEC and SPN...")
• The Economist: "Smart ALEC: How left-wing protesters helped a conservative club that ghost-writes state laws"
• Los Angeles Times: "Coca-Cola, Kraft leave conservative ALEC after boycott launched"

That's pretty strong evidence. The weight of "conservative" is extremely strong. Also, though this doesn't count for a whole lot, ALEC self-identifies as a "Nonpartisan individual membership organization of state legislators which favors federalism and conservative public policy solutions." Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I provided an additional article that calls them libertarian in my citation.

Daily Caller: Report: Obama’s EPA power balloons ("A report by the libertarian American Legislative Exchange Council found...") This uses identical language as the current citations referring to it as a "conservative" group but instead calls it "libertarian." The label fits, is in widespread use, and should be included. GregJohnson1 (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is an awful source, totally unreliable. That's why I did not mention it earlier. It is useless on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Should I remove the literal hundreds upon hundreds of citations that I have seen of it on Wikipiedia? GregJohnson1 (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please, that would be helpful. Leave the ones that nobody would ever dispute, for instance a biography about a writer who writes for The Daily Caller needs a citation or two to support that fact. Binksternet (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I heartily support any effort to scrub the encyclopedia of even slightly controversial TDC citations. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Charlie Chaplin

This is a note to let the main editors of Charlie Chaplin know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 2, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Charlie Chaplin (1889–1977) was a British comic actor, filmmaker, and composer who rose to fame in the silent era. Chaplin became a worldwide icon through his screen persona "the Tramp" and is considered one of the most important figures of the film industry. His first screen appearance came in February 1914, after which he produced the popular features The Kid (1921), The Gold Rush (1925), and The Circus (1928). Chaplin refused to move to sound films in the 1930s, instead producing City Lights (1931) and Modern Times (1936) without dialogue. He became increasingly political and his next film, The Great Dictator (1940), satirised Adolf Hitler. The 1940s was a decade marked with controversy for Chaplin, and his popularity declined rapidly. Accused of communist sympathies, he was forced to leave the United States. The Tramp was abandoned in his later films, which include Monsieur Verdoux (1947), Limelight (1952), and A King in New York (1957). Chaplin wrote, directed, produced, edited, starred in, and composed the music for most of his films. His work is characterised by slapstick combined with pathos, and continues to be held in high regard. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Seneca Falls convention

I noticed a recent edit that you made to article on The Revolution (newspaper), saying that the Seneca Falls women's rights convention wasn't the first. I'm curious, when was there an earlier women's rights convention? Bilpen (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ann D. Gordon, the world's top authority on Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, says that the first convention organized by women to discuss women's rights was the Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women. As far as I know, women's suffrage was not discussed.

• Gordon, Ann D.; Collier-Thomas, Bettye (1997). "Introduction". African American women and the vote, 1837–1965. University of Massachusetts Press. pp. 2–9. ISBN 1-55849-059-0.

Regarding women's suffrage, the first convention to discuss the issue was organized by men of the Liberty Party, their national convention held in Buffalo, New York, on 14–15 June 1848. Presidential candidate Gerrit Smith argued for a party plank of women's suffrage, and the plank was established. As well, this convention put forward the name of Lucretia Mott for vice president, but this suggestion was voted down. The Liberty Party proved terribly unpopular at the polls, so none of its advances gained traction. In July 1848, Gerrit Smith's cousin Elizabeth Cady Stanton helped organize the Seneca Falls Convention. Author Judith Wellman offers the theory that Gerrit Smith and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, during a possible visit by Smith to Seneca Falls between June 2 and June 14, 1848, challenged or encouraged each other to introduce women's voting rights in their separate political and social spheres, as both subsequently did so, Smith taking the first shot.

• Wellman, Judith. The Road to Seneca Falls, University of Illinois Press, 2004, page 176. ISBN 0-252-02904-6

That makes the Seneca Falls Convention very likely the first one organized by women to discuss women's suffrage. Note that Stanton and Mott did not consider the Seneca Falls Convention to be very influential until they were writing about it in the late 1870s and 1880s. Before then, everybody in women's rights said that Lucy Stone/Paulina Davis National Women's Rights Convention of 1850 was the first national and international convention to discuss suffrage, and it had far-reaching influence. Even Stanton agreed: she said in 1870 in a speech to the NWSA that "The movement in England, as in America, may be dated from the first National Convention, held at Worcester, Mass., October, 1850."[2] Stanton changed to a more self-promotional tone when she began writing the history of the movement: History of Woman Suffrage. Since Lucy Stone elected to stay away from the history documentation project because of past differences with Stanton, Stanton placed herself at the center of two conventions which she portrayed as critically foundational to women's rights and women's suffrage. From that point forward Stanton and Anthony were pushed up in importance while Stone was sidelined and minimized. For more on this issue, see Sally Gregory McMillen, Seneca Falls and the origins of the women's rights movement, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 0-19-518265-0. Nancy Isenberg spends a lot of ink on the same issue in Sex and citizenship in antebellum America, University of North Carolina Press, 1998, ISBN 0-8078-2442-9. Isenberg shows that the Seneca Falls Convention was not so widely hailed in its day, and that other conventions influenced the issue of women's rights. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that aspect of the 1837 Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women. I have now read what Gordon had to say about it, and it's certainly intriguing.

But remember, the issue here is whether the article on the Revolution was correct in describing the Seneca Falls convention as the first women's rights convention (not whether Seneca Falls was first the convention at which women's rights was among the topics that were discussed).

If someone claimed that Seneca Falls was the first convention at which women's rights was discussed, they would be wrong, as you point out. The same would be true if someone claimed that the Seneca Falls was the first convention to discuss or advocate women's suffrage. But the issue here is: Do professional historians refer to the Seneca Falls convention as the first women's rights convention?

The answer definitely is yes. Of the books you referenced, the fact that Seneca Falls was the first women's rights convention is reflected the full name of Judy Wellman's book: The Road to Seneca Falls: Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the First Woman's Rights Convention. Nancy Isenberg's book describes the Seneca Falls convention as "the first women's rights convention" on page 1. Sally McMillen's book describes Seneca Falls as "the first women's rights convention" on 115. The consensus of historians in general definitely is that Seneca Falls was the first women's rights convention.

McMillen, by the way, talks about the "momentous" place in history of the Seneca Falls convention on page 71. On pages 99-100 she presents a statistical analysis of newspaper reactions to the convention, noting that the greatest interest was in the Midwest and Northeast but that even in the South 23 newspapers commented on it.

It is worth noting that Lucretia Mott was at both the 1837 and the 1848 conventions, and she never disputed the assertion that Seneca Falls was the first women's rights convention. Stanton herself referred to Seneca Falls as the first women's rights convention in a note she wrote to Elizabeth McClintock just before that convention began. You can read it in Gordon, Volume 1, p. 69. That very short entry has three footnotes by Gordon, yet in none of those footnotes does Gordon tell the reader that Stanton was mistaken because Seneca Falls was not the first women's rights convention. If Gordon believed that Seneca Falls was not the first women's rights convention, she would say so clearly and unambiguously, and that would generate tons of controversy.

I think it is abundantly clear that professional historians do in fact describe the Seneca Falls convention as the first women's rights convention, and that it is therefore the obligation of Wikipedia to describe it just that way also. Bilpen (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that historians generally count the Seneca Falls Convention as the first convention on women's rights. The problem with that general label is that it is not correct. It was the first woman-organized convention to discuss women's rights, in the context of white women's rights, outside of the concerns about securing rights for enslaved black women, and the rights for free black women—the focus of the 1837 convention. That's why it is called the first, because most of American history is about whites. However, if Seneca is called the first, then that means African Americans did not count as women. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, your position here reminds me of the claim made by a teacher at the junior high I attended that Peyton Randolph was the first President of the United States. Enough of the original research pedantry which you usually have little patience for when it's not your own! YOUR truth doesn't trump Wikipedia policy. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, you remind me of Randy from Boise charging in to protect the misinformation he was taught. Bilpen and I are discussing what can be found by reading books by Ann D. Gordon, Joelle Million, Sally Gregory McMillen, Nancy Isenberg, the Worcester Women's History Project, Andrea Moore Kerr, Judith Wellman and others who discuss the primacy of the Seneca Falls Convention in terms of women's rights conventions and women's suffrage discussions. If you wish to take part in this discussion on my talk page you would be advised to read the books found in the reference section of the Seneca Falls article. You'll notice that modern writers do not accept Stanton's assertion on its face, that the Seneca Falls Convention was actually the first. Of course they acknowledge its importance in history, though a few authors note that the Lucy Stone and Paulina Wright Davis 1850 convention was considered much more important in its day, with much wider influence. So both primacy and importance are called into question by modern scholars. You'll see these themes when you dig into the reference books. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't need to consult those sources, Bink. Today I'm also busy with my singing, snow shoveling, and an Agatha Christie (Endless Night, one of her better late career efforts). It's enough to know that the 1837 convention focused on abolition. It was a convention of women but it was not a "women's rights" convention; at least no more than a contemporary all-female anti-abortion convention would be a "women's rights" convention if it discussed the issue of sex selective abortion. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of abolitionist American women in 1836–37 when researching the origin of the women's rights movement. The "woman question" was debated in the US newspapers in 1836—what was woman's proper role in society, should she assume an active and public role in the reform movements of the day? Introduced by Angelina Grimke, the mostly white women at the mixed race 1837 convention hotly debated then adopted, not unanimously, a resolution saying that no American women should be bound by traditional limits on what they were able to do in the political realm. Grimke wrote that women were quite properly concerned with political matters, and should exert whatever influence they could muster. This was a firebrand statement, very radical and exciting for its day. Gordon counts it highly as do many other historians. Jack Larkin talks about the interconnected issues of woman's rights and abolitionism which came to a head in 1840 with a split in the abolition movement, one faction deciding that these pushy women should be shut out. They were not shut up, though; the Grimke sisters and a small number of radicals continued to combine women's rights with abolitionism. Larking writes, "These women confronted a deeply ingrained tradition—the notion that women did not and should not speak in public. The first women lecturers were Sarah and Angelina Grimké. They began by addressing all-female audiences—itself a violation of custom—but soon went on to speaking before mixed groups of men and women, an even more serious offense." All of this was before the Seneca Falls convention. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. And antecedent women's meetings such as the Anti-Slavery Convention of 1837 paved the way for conclaves that explicitly focused on women's rights; the first being the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, let me be clear that I admire all the work you do for Wikipedia, and I also admire your determination to give proper recognition to groups that have been historically marginalized. But I think you should trust the judgment of professional historians on this issue. There aren't many academic groups that are more sensitive to issues of racial justice than historians of the women's movement, and they agree that Seneca Falls was the first women's rights convention (as distinct from a convention at which women's rights were among the topics that were discussed).

I think you are reading too much into what Gordon wrote. You reference a book that she co-edited, African American Women and the Vote, 1837–1965, which was published in 1997. In it she said the 1837 Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women replaced the Seneca Falls convention as the starting point for that book, but she didn't make any claims beyond that. No one within the community of professional historians of the women's movement believes that Ann Gordon has claimed that Seneca Falls was not the first women's rights convention. If Gordon wanted to claim that, she would do so plainly and unambiguously, and a vigorous debate would follow. None of that has happened. The entire community of professional historians of the women's movement, including Gordon herself, is acting as if she never made such a claim, and that's because she didn't.

The 1837 convention insisted on the right of women to fight on an equal basis with men against the oppression of another group, the slaves. That was definitely a necessary, admirable and historic step, but it still did not challenge a key social norm of that time, which was that the role of women was to serve others. The Seneca Falls convention, on the other hand, was called by women specifically to fight against their own oppression, and that was an earth-shaking step that is still reverberating. It was the first convention that was called specifically to fight for women's rights as such. And that characteristic is what made it a women's rights convention, which is a qualitatively different thing than a convention whose discussion included women's rights.

Because professional historians overwhelmingly (and unanimously, as far as I can discover) agree that Seneca Falls was "the first women's rights convention", generally using that exact phrasing, it is appropriate to describe it in Wikipedia just that way. Wikipedia's role is to accurately present the view of recognized experts.

I think I have provided ample evidence to show that I would be justified in restoring the phrase "the first women's rights convention at Seneca Falls" in the article on The Revolution (newspaper). Would it help if I provided a specific citation for that statement? Considering the overwhelming support for that statement by professional historians of the women's movement, I personally don't think that is really necessary, but it certainly wouldn't do any harm if that's what you would prefer. I would probably cite The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Social History, published in 2012, which describes Seneca Falls as "the first women's rights convention" on page 56. Bilpen (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I updated the Seneca Falls Convention article with documentation to show that it was the first women's convention. Bilpen (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

rfa

Any particular reason you think the ip notifying the fringe noticeboard about an RFA is inappropriate? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the note is a violation of WP:CANVASS, and the IP is obviously an experienced editor who is trying to avoid being connected to his or her main account. Even though I voted to oppose Keithbob's RFA, and the IP is also aiming for more people to oppose Keithbob, I still don't agree with the IP's methods. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The Hurt Locker

The review that I deleted from the Wikipedia for The Hurt Locker was a gross, unprofessional exaggeration of this film's merits. To include this review would be highly misleading to those considering watching this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:468:C80:4123:15A3:9AE7:F9C2:943E (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The review was published by a reliable source. I think your dislike of it is out of bounds. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

please stop harrassing me

I believe your behaviour constitutes harassment and I would like to discuss it with you rather than involve other parties, unless you would like to bring in other parties which I am quite open to. We already had an extensive discussion here, on this Talk page, over your false allegations of edit warring, did we not? Yet you repeat the same false charge on my Talk page. Do you understand that the appropriate behaviour here is engage on the article Talk page? So why aren't you? Do you see, on that Talk page, where I produce the evidence that the material "received no objection" is false, and that my very clear objection received no response on the article Talk page? Just what is stopping you from expressing your opinion on the content matter there? Does the content issue matter to you? What exactly is your object here? Do you think I am ignorant of the fact that petrarchan47 wants the material included (in the introduction, if in the body it would be less problematic because what's wrong with it could potentially be filled out)? Please be advised that I am quite aware such that your posting notices on my Talk page does not inform me of anything, except that you evidently wish to aggravate another Wikipedia editor.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not harassing you, I'm acting to protect the Wiki. Your behavior is not conducive to a collegial atmosphere. Your arguments for your position are weak and not based on policy. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So, as self-appointed Defender of the Wiki, you are going to harass me until the Wiki is liberated, is that the plan? Here's news for you: the "Wiki" is not on my Talk page. re "your behaviour is not conducive to a collegial atmosphere", please consult the nearest mirror and then consider whether your go-to-war mentality is creating more heat than light. As for my arguments, you haven't been engaging them. This is your invitation to do so. You see the Talk page for the VENONA project? Why are you not making a comment there instead of on my Talk page? By the way, why do you refuse to answer my questions?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

History of Creationism

RE: Hi there, not sure I understood WP:Weight the same way you did? Why must a detailed description of the science go in the lead on an article that already makes it clear this is a religious belief? Not disagreeing just looking to learn further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you pretending not to know that this topic is one used by religious people to discredit scientific theories, and vice versa? Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Not even slightly. I'm simply saying that WP:Weight makes no mention of the lead. The lead of that article makes it clear that it is a belief. The paragraph doesn't read right at that location in the article is my only problem with it. I don't, in any way, want it to appear as if I'm saying we should make it look like creationism is right. But I don't think that paragraph adds to the readability of or usefulness of that page as a resource on the history of creationism (a topic I would suspect to be of more interest to people who don't believe in nonsense that to creationists) where it is. If you can't point to the specifics of the policy which require it to bein the lead I suggest we take this to the talk page rather than your user page.SPACKlick (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Article talk page, yes. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

work with me here...

Please work with me here. There are a lot of inaccuracies and plain wrong information on Stop Islamization of America. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't thwart my efforts to remove blank cites, cites from biased authors, and stuff like that. Your templating of me was uncalledfor. -- Frotz(talk) 03:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Your reversions are about to hit #4. If they do, I'm reporting you at WP:3RRN.

My edit to SIOA here included the edit summary statement "I will be adding more sources for the disputed label." That's what I have been trying to do. Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You saw the evidence of that when you saw an empty book cite. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I will concede to breaking the link to SIOA's website. It still stands that you need to stop coatracking with irrelevant and unobjective citations and accusing people who call you out on it. -- Frotz(talk) 04:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that right? I'm adding good, solid sources to support the label of "Islamophobic".

Why are you fighting the label so hard? It's accurate, descriptive and widely known. For Chrissakes, SIOA is the poster child for Islamophobia in the USA. I didn't know blinders came in such an extra large size. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

RE:What Makes You Beautiful

Yeah but it's true!! Look up "What Makes "U" Useful", it's like right there on the Muppet Wiki. I am a true Muppet Master. I know when that kinda stuff happens. -- 173.76.124.124 (talk)! —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, that means I will have to be even more alert for 'facts' added to Wikipedia supported by nothing other than the Muppet wiki. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Sex-selective abortion, you may be blocked from editing.

If you have genuine concerns about the RS status of the material added, please engage on the talk page, If you continue disruptive editing you will be reported. Mark Marathon (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

i dare you

Block me. I will do it again, i dare you to reply to my discussions rather owning articles and issuing warnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya301 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

.

oops, I saw blocking warning on your page as well.

Come on discussions. People like Sitush are owing articles unnecessarily. And i have given explanation to each of my word.

For Sitush (with proofs and evidence) Arrogant-believes, his arguments and references are best (look at his discussion on his talk page, where he writes people to fuck off), Illogical- he cant digest logical evidence- still trying to get the biology definition in Math book: Eg; has written about khatris origin from Dashrath Sharma on Rajputs book, idiot- cant understand references and read them, racist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism) Sitush come under this definition, look at his all articles, he only writes articles which classify people based on their features https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sitush&action=history.

Each word is true and has a evidence for it. Read it by yourself before issuing warnings....

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 8, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Behringer NPOV_dispute

The Behringer article reads a lot like marketing material. I notice that it used to have a Wikipedia:NPOVD tag, but that it has been removed. Do you thing it should be added back? Robert.Harker (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm done with that topic because that company makes me too angry from their past behavior as intellectual property pirates. Before you go back and start working on it, you should see this diff of all the changes that have been made to the article since I worked on it last a couple of years ago. What you should notice is that hardly anything has been changed. So to answer your question, no, I don't think it deserves a POV tag. If you have ideas about how to improve it, then what it deserves is your attention on improvement. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Robert.Harker (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

ECat Edits

Let's see ... I've reverted twice, WITH discussion, and you've reverted edits by TWO authors THREE times (twice -- 18:36, 19:36 -- without joining the existing discussion). Seems to me that YOU have the three edit-war strikes. Alanf777 (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ask yourself who is pushing a viewpoint, and who is trying to hold the topic down such that it conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines. One of us it deeply involved, even entrenched in the topic. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Terence McKenna

I was hoping you might help me with a situation I'm encountering on the Terence McKenna article. There is an editor who insists on inserting critical material that, IMO, is unsupported, into this article. For instance, he has inserted the line "which the scientific community considers to be pseudoscience" after his Novelty Theory AND in the lead paragraph, with no support but a book by a film producer (not a member of the scientific community, and with no poll or study cited) and an article from a blog that says nothing about what the scientific community thinks. He will neither accept the addition of the name of the author who said this nor the amendment "some members of the scientific community". He also has inserted a paragraph criticizing his Stoned Ape Theory from a high school student's essay. If you could, please review the discussion on the talk page and help or at least advise. The same editor has been admonished for aggressive editing on the Rupert Sheldrake article; IMO, he has an agenda concerning anything he sees as pseudoscience, and he is utilizing improper sources to support his editing. I don't want this to descend into edit warring.Rosencomet (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, he also slapped this notice of a DS on my talk page the moment I modified his edit: [3], even though I never edited the pages in the DS, IMO implying that I might be in trouble if I touched his edits. Rosencomet (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I will look into this issue. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Demonstration bomb information?

Do you believe that Hawkeye's removing of the demonstration info on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki article is valid? He kept on removing it without explaining. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's talk about this at Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Proposed demonstration where Hawkeye7 has opened up a discussion. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Curtis LeMay

You restored my deletion of the two sentences concerning the atomic attack on the USSR that LeMay somewhat jokingly called "killing a nation." My deletion is based on it being misleading to the actual events. What actually occurred was Truman's Secretary of Defense Forrestal was asking the Joint Chiefs of Staff questions about the effectiveness of atomic bombs if the U.S. used them against the USSR. In response to these questions, the Harmon committee was created to study the effects of a nuclear strike against that country. Of course, the committee first needed to know the nature of such an attack. In response to the committee's request, LeMay and SAC then came up with the 133 atom bomb attack on 70 cities. Months later, in May, 1949, the Harmon committee presented its report to the the Joint Chiefs which stated that Soviet industry would quickly recover from such an attack. The Wikipedia text, among other things, seems to be implying that LeMay had come up with this plan for mass destruction on his own accord. The listed source, "The Bomb, A Life" is an entertaining but subjective read. The author, frequently writes with what I consider an omniscient point of view.

Later in the article, the Wikipedia text reads, "When Wallace announced his selection in October 1968, LeMay opined that he, unlike many Americans, clearly did not fear using nuclear weapons." If sources for such controversial passages as this can't be found, I certainly think they need deleting.TL36 (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A good solution would be to add context rather than delete text. Binksternet (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I can see adding content in most cases but for quotes like the "... LeMay opined that he, unlike many Americans, clearly did not fear using nuclear weapons," I don't see doing anything but deleting them unless someone comes up with a source for them.TL36 (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

On the Curtis LeMay talk page where the Japanese firebombing was discussed, you stated, "the civilian deaths were not collateral; they were the purpose, the aim." Do you have a source for that belief?TL36 (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What source believes differently? LeMay had his bombers drop incendiaries on ten square miles of Tokyo in a giant X pattern centered on Tokyo's most populated area, the slums, if you will. The houses were made of wood, bamboo, plaster and paper, the population density was very high, more than 100,000 per square mile. I have no idea what sources there are which would support your implied position, ones that say LeMay was not trying to kill people. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

But for argument's sake, here are some sources discussing LeMay's intent to kill Japanese people in cities:

• Targeting Civilians in War, pages 131 to 137
• Bombing Civilians: A Twentieth-Century History – "According to Henry Arnold and Curtis LeMay, bombing civilians was essential in order to break Japanese morale."[4]
• World War II in the Pacific: An Encyclopedia, page 178
• Why They Die: Civilian Devastation in Violent Conflict, page 42, quoting LeMay saying "there are no innocent civilians," with analysis of the results.
• Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, pages 92 to 94
• Civilians and Modern War: Armed Conflict and the Ideology of Violence, page 72
• Dark Sun: The Making Of The Hydrogen Bomb, page 21. Quotes LeMay saying after the war, "Killing Japanese [civilians] didn't bother me very much at that time."
• A Companion to World War II, page 557. Discusses whether it was LeMay who was the architect of firebombing Japanese cities. Conclusion is that most historians say LeMay was the architect. The minor voices are Searle who says the idea was already present at USAAF and LeMay was merely the first great success story. Werrell says the pressure to firebomb Japan was put upon LeMay's predecessor. Downes says that leaders in Washington wanted Japan to be defeated without an invasion, so the firebombing would have happened with or without LeMay. Sherry and Frank, however, emphasize that LeMay was not a passive agent of the concept of firebombing civilians—he was enthusiastic, aggressive and inventive, and he was the first American to do it. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I asked the question because I wasn't aware of any mainstream source that states the only aim of the fire raids was to kill civilians[as many as possible] and that's how I interpreted what you wrote. The question wasn't meant to imply anything or be provocative, although it apparently was. Of the sources you listed, A Companion to World War II, seems to come close to saying killing people was the primary goal with Searle's "civilian casualties were one of the explicit objectives of area incendiary bombing." However, if one gets Searle's essay, The Firebombing of Tokyo in April 1945, the paragraph from which that was taken begins with "Japanese industry was the primary target of the area raids, as it was for precision raids." Searle's essay does lay out a convincing case that killing civilians was one of the primary objectives, although certainly not the only goal. I'll try to ask questions in the future more directly aimed toward improving an article.TL36 (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, cousin

Are we related? Are you related to Ruth Esther Knowles (Born - 13 Dec 1823 - Bladen County, North Carolina)? See Richard F. Lyon. Dicklyon (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My earliest known Knowles relative is Edmund Knowles, born in 1685 in Lancashire, England, who came to the American colonies as an indentured servant. After service, he prospered modestly, lived a long life, and died in what is now Delaware in 1762, before all that flap about King George. See the website KNOWLES/KNOLES/NOLES Family Association, even though you'll laugh at its Web 1.0 MS FrontPage appearance. The page "Edmund 'Old Silverhead' Knowles Line" has more detail on this guy. None of the pages list a Ruth Esther Knowles as far as I can tell, or any Ruth who was born in 1823. My dad's name is on that last link—Ronald Robert Knowles—but not his wives or his kids (or their kids). The list is not complete, by any stretch.

You know, we're all cousins if you go back far enough. Binksternet (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it shows a George married to Esther in Bladen County NC a few generations earlier, so that's probably her granddad. Dicklyon (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that's possible. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Name too close to official entity

Hiya! I know there's a rule about no official names but I don't know the method to report it. There's a User talk:City of Mt. Shasta making edits to the Mount Shasta, California webpage. Thanks for letting me know what to do or referring it to the right people. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a perfectly appropriate template for their talk page, one that asks them to change their name. It also calls an admin to come look at the issue, with the admin usually soft-blocking the account. I will go place that template. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done TPS-ing, noticed this. Bencherlite^Talk 20:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!! I don't know how to find all the templates for everything yet! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Bladesmulti

Hello again Binksternet, I've talked with you about a few things here and there, starting with that person who was trying to get the old map of the world into various articles about the Americas, plus upgrade the history of various cities in California. Actually, truth be told, I have a small backlog of questions for you, concerning more recent things, unrelated to that.  :-)

  But first things first. My *most* recent question for you, is from yesterday. You opened a new section at AN/I to propose there be enacted a "Site ban for Bladesmulti: After taking far too much time clicking on links, reading discussions and looking into this mess, I don't see any way out except to ban Bladesmulti from Wikipedia." — Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 27 Jan

  There is a slight possibility now, of a save at the last minute. Pending some SPI report coming back clean, and some vastly-improved-performance by the editor in question. So my request is, can you peek again at the AN/I thread, and see whether you would be willing to defer the question of a siteban, until a future time? Possibly in twelve hours, or possibly in a week, or with luck, maybe never, if Bladesmulti can shape up. My thinking is that, the current thread is long and vast... the diffs of poor behavior are spread throughout it... and therefore to save people from needing to spend *further* effort clicking and reading... maybe we can close the current thing as "no action this second but pending further developments swift justice may well occur" ... or if not actual close it, then {{collapse}} it temporarily, until events outside of AN/I have taken their course?

1. WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Site_ban_for_Bladesmulti , the subthread you began at 22:59, 27 Jan (mentorship began at 19:38, 28 Jan)
2. User_talk:Bladesmulti#mentor , proposal accepted
3. WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#OccultZone_and_Bladesmulti_Sockpuppet.3F , battleground stalled
4. User_talk:Bladesmulti#Dear_74. , attitude improves
5. User_talk:Tryptofish#Criticism_of_Jainism. , attitude improves further
6. WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Temporary_resolution , suggested cease-fire

Not sure if the hat/close/collapse/somesuch that I'm suggesting is obviously heretical, clearly sound, or somewhere in the middle.  :-)   Consider it a suggestion that you take a peek, and then tell me where on the spectrum my scheme falls. Thanks much. p.s. And of course, WP:REQUIRED applies as always, you need not peek if you would prefer to avoid the remainder of the sordid saga. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion I started at ANI is not mine in the sense that I can stop it if I think it should be stopped. I could try hatting it but plenty of people will want to continue. I think the best I can do along the lines of your request is to declare that I think Bladesmulti should be given a chance under mentorship. Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review

Hi Bink, I had rather expected a little more help with the rape article so can only hope that my additions are OK. At any rate, nobody seems to be adding any discussion to the talk page, so I'd assume that it is ready for another try at a review. Gandydancer (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please renominate it for GAN. I will jump in and review it again. Looks like it is in much better position now with the new Legacy section. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Wire Radio

		The Original Barnstar
		For some really great work on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Wire Radio. Your efforts made a huge difference and really worked to save the article. Also done in a way that promoted civil discourse among editors; thanks for that! BerkeleyLaw1979 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! What a lovely gesture. Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sexual Slavery

Let's stop deleting sourced materials and making bogus excuses for doing so (ie I'm going to delete this because the article is about something else, even though the heading states otherwise). Also, there's no need to hit a new low and start making personal attacks (ie accusing me of sock puppetry for creating a wiki account in order to enhance accountability). Lets bring the discussion to the talk page, please. Thanks!--Imbored2013 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's not whitewash or conceal the history of comfort women. If you don't like something (ex. like the fact that they existed), please use the talk page, rather than deleting content with reliable sources. Also, if you disagree with it on a historical factual basis, please be prepared to provide opposing historical sources (preferably academic sources).

In the latter case, if you have opposing material, include that with my content to balance the material out and show that there are multiple viewpoints on the matter. Don't just simply delete. Thanks!--Imbored2013 (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can work with me to put the South Korean stuff in perspective, I think the article will be improved. Especially needed are some hard numbers showing how many women were kidnapped versus hired.

My wish is that the Japanese comfort women program of WWII is not watered down by a direct comparison with a later system which was a lot less evil. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The sources I included are both "South Korean stuff," as both authors are South Korean women. It seems like you are defending the male-dominated Korean nationalist historical framework, in which it's a bad thing when Japanese men prostitute Korean women, but it's ok when Korean men prostitute Korean women. When you say things like, "My wish is that the Japanese comfort women program of WWII is not watered down by a direct comparison with a later system which was a lot less evil," you are already asking the wrong historical questions. How does talking about Korean men's violation of Korean women "water down" Japanese men's violation of Korean women? And how can you say one is "a lot less evil" than the other, when both women's experiences are very similar? This is the kind of thinking South Korean women in the academia are trying to refute, as they view the mistreatment of Korean women by any men as equally wrong.

Anyway, its unbecoming a senior editor on wiki to delete content that includes reliable sources because of your original thinking (that one form of exploitation is "less evil" when it is done by men of the same race). If you disagree with South Korean women who want to give voice to South Korea's comfort women, I suggest you at least find sources that corroborate your views, whatever they are.--Imbored2013 (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

So you have no inclination to add hard numbers? This is an encyclopedia, where such things matter. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

As the third largest contributor to this article, would you be interested in cosponsoring it at FAC? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would be proud to help. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

why did you remove the sentence on the McCarthyism page?

Your comment about removing it says "revert... the paragraph is about myths about McCarthy, not about whether McCarthy was ever right)" It is a one word sentence in the introduction about McCarthyism. To say that it is a paragraph is being generous and to say that the "paragraph" can only be about one topic implies that the sentence should have gone somewhere else rather than been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.223.87 (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought the addition was clumsy and unclear. The references you selected show that historians are mostly in agreement regarding whether Alger Hiss was really a Communist spy. Your visible text says Hiss was "likely" a spy. This assertion would be more solid if historians were not so split on the matter. You failed to bring references showing that Hiss is considered innocent of espionage by quite a few historians. At any rate, the McCarthyism article is not the place to argue the Hiss case, and the lead section of any article is not the place for new evidence. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be a summary of the arguments found in the article body. If you feel otherwise, you can ask for opinions on the McCarthyism talk page. Binksternet (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

GovLinks

as a participant in the discussion, you might be interested in this thread. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The 1993 Philadelphia Meeting

I have left a proposed rewrite of the 1993 Philadelphia Meeting on the talk page for the Holy Land Foundation Wikipedia page for your input. Livingengine1 (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Last SIOA edit

Yo, the Anti-Muslim orgs category was removed because the category doesn't exist anymore. Poor decision, but leaving a redlink won't change that. Also, what's the deal with Expo as a source? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha, I have taken out the deleted category. The Expo.se source is not unreliable by itself, being a Swedish group working against hate. Its use in the article was not appropriate because Breivik's words were being quoted out of context, without analysis. His strategy appears to be one of confusing the media with contradictory motives. We cannot give the reader just one of his statements when others show it to be false or at least questionable. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I agree the bit doesn't belong in the article; I was just wondering at your suggestion that the source was unreliable, since it seemed fine to me. Looks like we're on the same page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Raising Caen

User_talk:Cynthiavictoria#Trying_to_give_the_fuller_picture -- EEng (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan

This puts me in an awkward position. You and I have worked well together in the past and I certainly don't want to spoil that. What policy or guideline gave you the right to do that? And what do I do now that Petrarchan told me I could contribute no more on his/her user talk? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed what I believe are the relevant guidelines (WP:TALK and WP:USER) and I don't see anything that entitled you to delete my comment on another editor's user talk. As such I believe WP:TPO applies. Please self-revert, or I'll ask an admin to do it. Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

So you wish to violate Petrarchan's admonition to you to stay off her user page? What guideline allows that? Binksternet (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No, he/she specifically asked me to answer his/her question and then stay off his/her user talk. It's up to him/her to decide whether my answer was acceptable or not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem you have with using "she" and "her" with regard to User Petrarchan47? Don't make her into a faceless enemy by keeping her gender a question. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

AGF. I call everyone "he/she" until I have evidence one way or the other. I try not to make assumptions. How do you know Petrarchan is female? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your last post on her page, it was not an answer. Do we both agree on this point? It was a reply, yes, but it did not answer her question, and instead became an accusation. She allowed you one final answer but you did not answer. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. "She" asked me to substantiate my accusation, so I did. You don't get to be the arbiter of what's an "answer" and what isn't. I'm done bickering. Two questions: Will you or won't you self revert? And if you don't, what do you suppose I should do? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

With this pair of posts, you severely misrepresented Petra's response to Brian. You said she "failed to address most of his arguments" yet you ignored the fact that she responded to Brian's accusation that Petra was pushing the "bullet-to-the-head" news source as a big news source. She explains that the Buzzfeed source was only used minimally, to explain why Snowden's lawyer was asking for more security, which was another of Brian's complaints.

The biggest problem I see is that you are following Brian's example by making this content argument a personal vendetta against Petra. Has her response been personal as well? Yes, it has, but I see Brian as the source problem, you as an enabler of Brian, and Petra as the victim despite her lashing back in kind. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have been followed around by Bdell555 for over a month. Due to time constraints and a severe dislike for noticeboards, I have let it slide over and over. I first noticed that after an interaction with him at Snowden talk, Bdell555 was countering me on an entirely unrelated matter at Jimbo's, where I had made my most recent contribution. Next thing I knew, it seemed a regular occurrence. When I started to help with the WikiProject Mass Surveillance (the Day We Fight Back), there he was again, weighing in against it. I made a post there talking about an NSA whistleblower called Russ Tice. After his visit to TDWFB, Bdell555 next hit the Tice bio and essentially smeared the man, adding and wikilinking the word "psychotic" in the first paragraph of his article. I next spent days fighting with him at the BLP noticeboard, where I asked for help but was ignored. Then I tussled with him at the Tice page for a few days, all the while getting more exasperated since I had other things I needed to be doing. Bdell555 was meanwhile back at the Snowden article making long comments like this full of original research, and demanding that I read and respond to them all. I asked for the comments to be more concise and contain more RS, and said I would respond to readable, useable posts. The diatribes did not end, and I finally was exhausted, and admitted it. This was when Fleischman showed up and claimed that I was ignoring the good faith contributions of Bdell555, and complained about my behaviour. I was hoping this meant Dr F had actually read through the contributions and deemed them good faith (as opposed to using the opportunity to pile on), and that he would be able to re-write them in a way I could understand. If in fact, there was nothing to those posts I was being told to read, save for POV/ OR/ SYNTH, then my exhaustion was well-founded. I was asking for help and truly thought Dr F would respond in good faith. I believe the exact opposite happened. I am wondering if you have an idea of a course of action, Binksternet, for one who finds themselves in this position? petrarchan47tc 00:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Would WP:IBAN work for you? If so, I'll propose it. Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so fast. IBAN is new to me. All of it makes sense to me except for the ban on reverting edits. I'm not that confident in my editing to claim I can't be reverted. What has happened feels to me like team-Wikihounding. Though it wasn't ever planned that way to begin with, there was a choice to oppose me in union with another editor, but without justification. Once it was shown that the reason for the opposition was invalid, there was a dance done to obfuscate this by starting new topics on the Snowden talk page and then hounding me at mine. Claims made against me about having a bad reaction when my POV is opposed are untrue. This can be shown by talk page. I tried to work with Bdell555 but I just couldn't understand what he was trying to say. I think if the Snowden talk page, and the edits at my talk and other articles I've worked on where I was followed over the past month, were thoroughly scanned, it would show a pattern of editing that should probably result in some topic bans. I'm not familiar with all of the guidelines and don't know exactly what has happened in WP:WIKITERMS, but it feels very wrong and has absolutely interfered with my ability to enjoy editing here. petrarchan47tc 02:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Bink, I already understood your position about why you believe my answer was inappropriate. I disagree, but I don't think we will make progress discussing it further. But, you didn't answer my two questions, which I ask in good faith. Will you or won't you self revert? (Based on your response, I suspect the answer is no.) And if you don't, what do you suppose I should do? I ask the second question because Petrarchan clearly wanted me to answer. I could try to answer again to your satisfaction, or I could not (leaving Petrarchan's request unfulfilled? not sure), or I could leave a note on Petrarchan's page saying I tried to answer but you didn't approve (a violation of Petrarchan's request). I just want to know what you were/are expecting from me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this is one of those times when any response on Petra's talk page will not be helpful; not to you, nor Petra, nor the project. I'm getting ready to post something about hounding and banning at AN, and I'll ping you about it so you can express your thoughts. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think I can safely interpret that as no to the first question, nothing to the second question. Re your AN report, are you talking about me or about Brian Dell? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about Petrarchan47, and those who have either hounded her or interacted disruptively with her. The diffs I look at will determine who I bring to the discussion. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed Brian's interactions with Petrarchan, but I doubt you'll find much ammunition against me unless you consider "disagreement" to be disruption or hounding. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I truly don't think that this sudden urge to micro-manage the one article I've turned my attention to at the moment is the most reasonable response, Fleischman. petrarchan47tc 23:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• More chatter is here. petrarchan47tc 00:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

He is now breathing down my neck at The Day We Fight Back, at this point it is literally him or me. I am liking your original suggestion a lot right now, as well as the second one. I cannot edit here with this guy on the same articles. It seems obvious that if I am working on only one article, and have this guy reverting me even there for the past two days, of all articles that he could be editing - something needs to be done. I am not going to edit here any longer if this continues. petrarchan47tc 07:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you need to grow a thicker skin if you can't handle a few reversions. I've deleted a tiny fraction of your work. I'm not following you around; we simply have overlapping interests. There are lots of articles you've edited recently that I've never touched. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

My complaints have nothing to do with hurt feelings or reverts. Frankly, it is offensive that you would obfuscate and minimize the issue by calling me "thin-skinned". I never heard that before you found out I was female, and am unsurprised to hear accusations like this now. petrarchan47tc

Also, I'm curious if you saw this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That's scary, considering you had very skewed and uninformed views about the subject you've dedicated your editing time to recently. The talk page shows you are trying to take control of the content, yet the page has gone without an update until I did it today. The protest has been finished for a week, yet the one active editor left on the page - you - have not seen fit to give an update to the results? Do you edit pages whose subject you actually hate? I know the answer, and it's evident by your edits, but I wanted you to know it is obvious. It is against the rules too: heavy bias means your contributions hinder the Project and your energetic dedication to mess with editors you hate can drive them away, which also hurts the Project. petrarchan47tc 23:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, he's busy reverting me again. I sincerely think that someone should look over his work at The Day We Fight Back, and eventually look at it against the backdrop of my request for help with BDell555 at Snowden, and Dr F's response (taking sides with BDell555 against me). It would appear that I am expected to deal with Dr F if I am to edit here, contrary to his claims that I am editing articles he isn't, and that this is all just innocent Wikipedia editing where we are only coincidentally coinciding. I reiterate my support for the IBAN idea. petrarchan47tc 23:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I expect that I'll be able to get to this issue on Wednesday. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I encourage other editors two look over my work at The Day We Fight Back. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"May we recommend"

(Since that big strong Bracketbot visited you recently...) User:EEng#.28thumbs_up.29 -- EEng (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That's funny! Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Owain Phyfe

Dear Binksternet, I was wondering if you could look over the article Owain Phyfe, which has just been nominated for deletion. Thanks in advance.Rosencomet (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Editor retention

So, you're not at all concerned that on the heels of a dispute about a file Doc starts a bizarre content dispute pushing a point that is physically impossible and disputed by higher quality sources on an article that passed FA last month? And if I did this to Doc I suppose you would take the exact opposite stance. You see yourself as a "bully fighter", but in your way you are as much a bully as anybody I know on Wikipedia. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I was not talking about Doc, nor am I concerned about him. I was watching your interaction with Cullen and responding to that alone. What did you intend to communicate with the heading "Editor retention"? Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Cullen has lied repeatedly to sway this debate. Remember those two books that discuss the image? They don't at all, even the one with it on the cover doesn't. I'm feeling ganged-up on for the last time and I'm not even sure why I waste my time here anymore. Thanks for always being there to remind me and everyone around how bad I am for the project. FTR, there are now 1400 words devoted to drugs and 1200 devoted to his three studio albums, and Cullen keeps pushing for more so that the mugshot is justified, since most of the article will be about his drug use and crimes, not his music or life. Its WP:UNDUE, and its revenge for opposing the mugshot. I can't believe that you can't see that. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not talking about the content dispute, about drugs or whatever should have more text devoted. I'm talking about your personal style, Gabe. So quickly you jump in front of someone's face to make an argument personal, especially by switching to the person's talk page as you are doing now. It was a terrible decision of yours to take the mugshot argument to Cullen's talk page, as if it was Cullen's personal editing style that was the problem, since most of the resulting very long conversation would have been of interest to the other Hendrix editors. All of that should have stayed on the article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, but you called me the bully in a thread where Doc is insisting that we add an impossible factoid out of spite and you just look the other way. I'm not a big fan of your personal style either, but I don't judge you for it at every turn and attempt to humiliate you as often as I can. There are plenty of editors that are far worse than me and many of them are admins, so what's your point? Oh well, I wanted to write a book anyway, and I'll never get it done arguing with Doc about chronological impossibility. Why won't you at least weigh-in that we shouldn't include a falsehood just because two bad sources repeat it. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• FTR, Cullen agrees with me about the drug issue and they apologized to me for misleading people. So next time that you go around calling people bullies on talk pages at least ask the person who you think is being bullied if they need your "help" before smearing the good name of a well-intentioned editor. Its not often that a bullied person apologizes to their bully. You should have stayed out of it, because you do not show good judgment about these things, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• BTW, this is the proper solution: Jimi Hendrix: Canadian drug charges and trial, and its exactly what I went to Cullen's talk page to discuss in the first place, before you jumped in five minutes later and side-tracked the whole thread trying to "put me in my place". Please stop acting like an admin assigned to watch me, because you do not possess the right skill-set. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Bullying

I prefer not to discuss article content issues on my talk page. Such issues are for the article talk page.

Regarding the label "bully" as applied to you, take a look here:

• Your hounding accusation against Dubmill. You used strong-arm tactics to scare away another good faith editor who was interested in the same single article as you were—David Gilmour. You misrepresented to Dubmill that he was breaking the guideline at WP:HOUNDING; the truth is that there is no possibility of hounding at one single article. Hounding requires the following around of another editor to multiple articles. Dubmill backs off and apologises. You then showed one more intersection of interests, a change made by Dubmill at the Who a few hours after your change. Again, this is a misrepresentation of HOUNDING, since Dubmill was already interested in music articles, and in that page, and it was being changed by many other editors at the time. Note that "your" addition was flawed: " They subsequently earned achieved a number of further hit singles"; one too many words. Dubmill fixed it handily. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I know you have acted in a bullying manner before, and I can see several similar cases in your recent edit history. I don't care to list them all as it would take too much time for doubtful results. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Dubmill corrected the exact same sentences that I had edited at two different articles five days in a row after I reverted him once (you missed it at the Who). That's hounding, and FTR I stopped editing David Gilmour to stay away from him. It would be FA right now if I had stayed there. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Will you at least acknowledge that you might not have seen all the right diffs regarding Dumill? Why do you think I havn't edited there in several months? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about, Bink. You can't go around "label bombing" people while also refusing to discuss the allegations; its cowardly, IMO. I never even saw Dubmill before I reverted them once (ironically, it was a "t" to a "T"), then they copyedited the exact same sentences that I wrote or edited for five days in a row at two different articles. Please, if you put into the permanent record that I bullied them by warning them about hounding at least do me the courtesy of explaining how that's not hounding? I'll bet you if I did that to you for the next five days you would take me to AN/I. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly interesting to see my editing discussed here in this way but I don't have any idea who is the subject of "editor retention". I did not lie if "lie" is defined as intentionally providing false information. My own Google searches produced some results that led me to believe that two books about mugshots probably discussed this particular mugshot. It does appear on the cover of one of those books, but the other mentions Hendrix only in passing. I apologized to GabeMc because I was wrong in my initial assessment of those books. But I never, ever pushed for more coverage of Hendrix's drug use, but I won't accuse anyone else of lying about me since that almost always accomplishes nothing, and apologies have already been offered and accepted all around. Instead, I observed that in my opinion, it would be good to integrate the alcohol and violence content into the narrative of his life, along with the drug use and the Toronto incident, and also observed that I felt that content about his life belonged before the section about his death for simple chronological reasons. Just because I offered that observation to another editor, that doesn't mean that I agree with that editor's or another editor's subsequent additions to the biography. I am not a ringleader. My goal here, as always, has been to try to improve the encyclopedia, and I have repeatedly said that I would accept consensus about the fate of the image, even if it went against my own view of the matter. During this dispute, I have always tried to acknowledge the validity of and understand the concerns of those I disagreed with on the immediate matter. This has been a learning experience for me on image use policy, and I do think that it is an interesting "edge case" that brings up tough questions and good arguments on both sides. Whenever I have been challenged, I have tried my best to answer honestly, and when I realized that some of my points had been weak, I conceded that. So, I regret the errors I have made, but do continue to believe that the substance of my position in this dispute has been sound and based on a reasonable interpretation of policies and guidelines. I hope that it is OK with you, Binksternet, for me to try to explain myself here. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328, as far as I am concerned me are fine; I know you were acting in good-faith. I am sorry that I used the wrong word above because misleading is much more accurate; you didn't lie because it wasn't intentional; you absolutely meant well for all. What I was trying to point out here is that Bink entered into the permanent record that I was bullying you, but you later gave me a barnstar and apologized, so I seriously doubt that you felt bullied. Its not right to label situations in such a way that the bullied isn't in on the supposed victimization. When you asked me to stop posting at your talk I stopped immediately and never edited it since. Editor retention? Well, this is just not worth it anymore and I am giving much more to the project than I am getting respect for. FTR, one of Binks best buddies is the biggest bully I've EVER seen on Wikipedia, and its not me. All I ask is that Binksternet leave me alone in that he stops intervening in content dispute and labels me. Take me to AN/I or stop smearing my name. I think that's perfectly within the spirit of Wikipedia, but what you are doing is pre-pubescent shaming like a child at school. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Advice going forward: Resist the urge to jump off the article talk page and take your discussions to a single user's talk page. That's what I'm talking about, Gabe. By doing so you make the argument personal, getting in that person's face. You do it a lot—it is not conducive to a collegial atmosphere. My respect for your editing ability has not flagged, not ever, but from the very beginning of you and me working on the same music articles, working on the same side of an argument, I have warned you about aggressive behavior. Now would be a good time to take an honest account of yourself. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I will say this. Accusations of bullying and whatnot roll right off my unusually thick hide. I do call a spade a spade, with no qualms. But I want it made clear that I had no Idea of the FUR for this image[5], or this image.[6] I am officially pissed off right now. Doc talk 08:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The timeline of the Dubmill HOUNDING case

• GabeMc and Dubmill have both been editing for years, with Dubmill the more veteran of the two. Here is a chart of their interactions on the same few pages. The chart says Dubmill was there before GabeMc on all the articles except David Gilmour's bio. Nevertheless, Dubmill had been working at the Gilmour article for years.
• At Donovan, Death of Ian Tomlinson, User talk:Diannaa, User talk:Soxwon, and User talk:Favonian, GabeMc and Dubmill were miles apart in terms of time—too far apart to count for hounding—but Dubmill was there first.
• At the Keith Moon bio, Dubmill was there first, GabeMc followed 11 days later, then Dubmill followed with more changes 28 days later. This is not hounding.
• So now we come to the meat of it: three articles with quick sequences of editor interaction.
• At the David Gilmour article, GabeMc had been editing it since October 2010 and Dubmill since July 2011. On October 14, 2013, GabeMc reverted an IP editor and restored lower case "t" in "the Orb" used mid-list.[7] A bit more than an hour later, Dubmill changed it to capital "T",[8] saying in his edit summary that (he thought) this was proper following of the Manual of Style. Nine minutes later, GabeMc puts the lower case 't' back,[9] saying that list case is the same as sentence case. Dubmill appears to accept this during a week in which GabeMc makes many changes (diff includes minor work by a few other editors) to the article without interference by Dubmill. On October 21 after seeing the article improved by a handful of changes by GabeMc, Dubmill made some innocuous improvements along the same lines. GabeMc continued with his series of changes. Dubmill corrected old, existing text not supported by reference, then made an innocuous improvement to old, existing text. This was followed an hour later by GabeMc touching up the exact same sentence that Dubmill had been working on. In a collegial atmosphere, this sort of interaction can be seen as teamwork, while in a combative atmosphere it can appear as WP:OWNership issues. So far, the interchange looks benign. GabeMc continues working through the next day. Dubmill joins in six hours later to make two edits. GabeMc continues to work on the article on October 22,[10], while Dubmill offered the odd, useful edit at 08:20, October 23.
• Meanwhile, at the Who article, Dubmill had been happily working at it since April 2009. Dubmill's most recent edit was October 1, 2013. GabeMc, after working fairly well with Dubmill on the Gilmour biography for two weeks, took a 16 hour break from editing, as we all do. Upon returning from his break he did not resume the Gilmour bio but instead chose to visit the Who article at 19:25, October 23, his very first visit, making six edits. About two hours later Dubmill corrected a flawed sentence which had been added by GabeMc in the second paragraph: "They subsequently earned achieved a number of further hit singles..." Dubmill could have removed earned or achieved to fix it, but he opted to reword it slightly to form the just-as-effective: "Several further hit singles followed...", accompanied by the edit summary, "Attempt at less awkward wording." Twelve minutes later GabeMc swoops in and changes the same sentence to read, "Several more hit singles followed...",[11] then another tweak to the same text 5 minutes after that to yield, "A string of hit singles followed..." This action effectively says "[even though I am new to the article which is your long-term interest] don't touch my stuff, not even to fix glaring flaws." The possible collegial teamwork has gone to a challenge of WP:OWN.
• So here's where it gets a lot warmer: GabeMc next makes a couple of small edits to the Gilmour and Hendrix biographies, then he goes to Joseph Costa (aviator) to "improve prose". This is GabeMc's very first visit to that page, and it arrives just six hours after Dubmill's very first edit to the article. The Costa biography was not part of a noticeboard discussion, nor part of a WikiProject discussion (it doesn't even have a talk page), so I have no idea what brought either editor to the article to edit it one time each. Neither editor's changes were problematic, but the presence of GabeMc following Dubmill to two articles on the same day (October 23) indicates WP:HOUNDING.
• Next, it appears that GabeMc is okay with Dubmill's work at the Gilmour biography. After a couple of small improvement edits each, at 18:02, October 24, GabeMc reverts a third editor's work back to the Dubmill version. All is not okay though, because the next interaction is this accusation by GabeMc of HOUNDING by Dubmill, the exact opposite of what just happened. Sequences like this are what caused me to call GabeMc a bully. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternate version

• I noticed a lot of "he was there first" or "he's been editing Wikipedia longer", which is embarrassingly irrelevant, Bink. Nice cherry-pick, but your timeline is off, or missing key data. Here's an alternate version. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• 21 October 2013: here Dubmill copyedited the exact passages I was editing just 17 minutes prior. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• 22 October 2013: here in Dubmill's first edits of the day thay copyedit the exact passage I had edited just 6.5 hours earlier. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• 23 October 2013: here in Dubmill's first edits of the day they correct my edit from 9 hours prior. Again, I appreciate that they fixed an error, but the closeness with which they followed my work is unsettling. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• FTR, on 23 October, in addition to editing my work at David Gilmour, Dubmill tweaked my work at the Who 2.5 hours after I made the edit. So that's confronting my work at two different pages within hours on the same day. They said this was not intended to hound me, so I'll WP:AGF for now. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• 24 October 2013: here in Dubmill's first edits of the day they corrected my work on a passage I edited just hours earlier. Yes, I missed the redundant word, so I appreciated the correction, but the way that they were doing it is giving me the impression that they are following my work with the intent to cause me distress. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Like I said, please take me to AN/I if you think that my behaviours are so innappropriate, but by acting like prosecutor, judge, and jury you are really operating your own personal "judgement counsel". I did not bully Dubmill; at worst I misinterpreted his actions. Don't you see that you shouldn't be interpreting the actions of an editor that you no longer AGF for? Anyway, as far as I knew Dubmill and I worked it out and never bothered each other again. I havn't edited Gilmour since November, and the incident occurred 4 months ago!!!. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I get that you don't think you are a bully. I think you are one, that this one example clearly shows it, and that this example is one among many. I also respect your ability to edit articles. More than that I think you are a very sharp guy. Your one problem I have warned you about for more than a year now is that you are too aggressive when making arguments. So since you refuse to see it, or you refuse to admit it with others watching the discussion, I will stop trying to convince you of the rectitude of my observation. Go forth and edit: ultimately it's the reader who will benefit. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that your observations are most worthy of consideration, Binksternet, although I usually refrain from judgments so stark as "bully". That's just an aspect of my personality. GabeMc, I agree that you are a very useful contributor to this encyclopedia. But in recent weeks, I have noticed a tendency on your part to ascribe bad motives to editors with whom you are engaged in routine content disagreements. If I had a more sensitive personality, I would certainly have felt bullied by you. It got very stressful for me. There are a lot of very productive contributors who have more sensitive personalities. I know some who have been deeply hurt by interactions with aggressive personalities here, and have either stopped editing or greatly reduced their participation. The encyclopedia needs those contributors. So I encourage you to monitor and moderate your own behavior, and always consider the destructive impact that an aggressive response may have on a productive contributor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll take what you guys have said to heart. I don't want to bully anyone, but I get very passionate when I feel that people are treating me disrespectfully and/or misrepresenting facts. However, I need to be able to see how my actions might upset others, and be considerate about that; I get it and I'll work on it from here on out. Two wrongs don't make a right, so I'll try my best to take the high road. I will say that I have not once used profanity or name calling on Wikipedia, which I cannot say for many others. Also, to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever stood up for me when I was being bullied, especially by admins. I think that whole blow-up with Bwilkins altered my behavior a bit; nobody really held him accountable for his bulling of me, so it seemed like I was fair game and unprotected. Nonetheless, I'm sorry I was aggressive, Cullen328, but FTR you never actually said or implied that I was bothering you until right before the last time I edited your page. Had you asked me to stop sooner I would have, which is what I do when I think that people are being aggressive on my talk page, since there aren't any bully patrols protecting me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Cinematic techniques and Sound

Hi there, I noticed that the Sound section of the Cinematic techniques article is a bit light-weight in comparison to the visual area. Equally, there don't seem to be many articles covering the topic of sound with regards to film-making. You seem to have knowledge (and interest) in that area, and maybe you could expand it a bit? Having article-stubs for the important topics of film-sound would be a great start, as I currently don't even know where to link to. I'm a bit lost there, and it isn't quite my area of expertise… Tony Mach (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let me give it some thought. Sound for film and sound for video are not part of my primary career, but I often read about the concepts and practices. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, there is an opportunity for you to write an article about the technique of zooming in film. Articles exist for Zoom lens and Digital zoom but there is no discussion of common analog zoom techniques and practices. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Having a starting point would already be good IMHO. Maybe simply first creating a "break-out" from the Cinematic techniques article? One can find articles on shots in general, on the Dutch angle and trunk shots, and what not – but virtually nothing on film sound as far as I can see… Doesn't have to be fancy nor perfect nor exhaustive – but at the moment there doesn't even seem to be much to link to from the cinematic techniques template.

And I'll have a look into Zooming! Tony Mach (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Done a first version: Zooming (filmmaking). And after doing the Cinematic techniques template I urgently need to do something else… :-) Tony Mach (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Rock on! The wiki is improved because of you. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Biting one's tongue

I was surprised to see you go after BlueSalix at the Live Wire AFD after you cautioned me against it. While I can't say I blame you, I do suggest you let it go. That user thrives on conflict, and I don't see anything positive coming from continued dialogue with him. Levdr1lp / talk 20:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Good advice! I'll take it... Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

More Tyrone Hayes

After several hours spent on removing more bias from Tyrone Hayes, a comment claiming the article has poor timelining and no citations was added to Talk:Tyrone_Hayes. I'm not sure what their problem is, I know you went through the article and I just put two hours more into it yesterday. It seems significantly cited and with a valid timeline to me. Perhaps the commentator is another of the WP:COI types? Please let me know your thoughts? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Lemme go there and look. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing serious, but I'm not letting down my guard. The Hayes biography is on my watchlist and I will see all the changes made to it. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't remove sourced material

If the English is poor,you can help improve it.And why is some material directly related to the subject unhelpful?Victorkkd (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I cannot understand what is being said, so I cannot correct the English. Binksternet (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It is simple.For the first part,Zhu Shiwei's recollection leads to the conclusion that not only Nanking Massacre didn't exist in his pupil textbook,but that speaking of it in public could cause unfavorable result so his teacher talked about it gingerly.For the second part,None of People's Daily's news,articles,from 1960 to 1982 mentioned Nanking massacre.That's it.Victorkkd (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

What about Hundred Regiment Offensive now.Just because the sources are in Chinese so they are not sources?Victorkkd (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your sourcing is very poor quality. Not because it is in Chinese. Binksternet (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Now I want to know,if I will show you the picture of Mao Xinyu's birth article on 炎黄春秋 in my hand,and giving the same source,will you stop your stubborn claim that"it is a blog source"?---Victorkkd (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A little more than that is needed to satisfy the WP:V requirement. You gave me the name of the magazine, but it is best to have the title of the magazine article, the name of the author, and the date of the publication. Can you find a link to the article in this search results page? If so, that would be even better. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.yhcqw.com/html/wqhg/2013/910/13910104255G6K0J927321H1C3271D2ECFG.html Here is the article but I don't see the need to give it so detailed even to the date.So I would do as much as adding the name of the author to the source.And by the way this is how some Chinese are writing on zh.wikipedia's Korean War.And if possible,I don't doubt they would add them to the English entry.And certainly many of the sources will never pass your standard of sourcing:

例如黄海道信川郡的屠杀。朝鲜指控这个郡里美军屠杀了三万五千余人并说美第八军司令向士兵号召“朝鲜人，哪怕是个幼儿，老人，你们的手也不要打战，杀呀！”。[156][157][158] North Korea accused US of massacring 35000 people in the county and said US Eighth Army Commander ordered"Don't tremble your hand even if he is an infant or oldman"

指控仅1950年7月，美军在韩国的13个市、道共屠杀了42008人。 There is accusation that in July 1950 alone.US army massacred 42008 civilians in South Korean soil.

朝鲜、中国、苏联等国政府多次谴责美军对朝鲜无辜平民的轰炸，称其为“违反国际法与人类道德常规的罪行”[166]。NK and China and Russia and so on condemned US bombing of innocent civilians as war crime.

有美军将女战俘脱成半裸的照片留下。[]有原海军陆战队回忆了对战俘的屠杀 A photo of US soldier stripped female POW. Former US marine recalled they killed POWs.

环球网报道美国还把中国被俘人员当作动物一样进行解剖来医学试验。有人看到活体解剖而被美军挖去了双眼。[196]。 According to Huanqiu net,US used Chinese POWs as guineas pigs.Someone was cut out his eyes by Americans because he saw living anatomy.

据遣返的战俘控诉，反共战俘挖出了张子龙的心脏以恐吓希望回国的战俘。[141]虽然美国方面的宣传品极力否认此事，甚至将其反宣传为共产党的污蔑[142]，然而反共战俘制（according to denouncement of repatriated POWs,anti-communist POWs cut out Zhang Zilong's heart to make an example,though US propoganda used every means to deny it and claim it is communist slander,it is still true that~~）

And Li Daan's cutting heart out of a Lin Xuepu is still there(I hadn't been able to find proof to disprove it before entry is locked)And I already cut off a lot of sensational and colorful words like"Li Daan grinned and licked off blood from the dagger"before it was locked last year.Just letting you know since your are interested in the subject too.--Victorkkd (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, man. You are a long-term edit warrior on Chinese Wikipedia, currently serving a one-month block which started on February 11, 2014. This fact does not help your credibility on English Wikipedia.

You supplied one URL as a source here, but it is a landing page for the magazine issue, a page to let the reader choose which article to read. The URL is not just one article. You must supply the exact URL of the article. As well, you need to know the author of the piece. The hard policy of WP:Verifiability is not going to change to accommodate your wishes.

You added the above text to the Chinese Wikipedia article about the battle, and yet you come to my page apparently claiming that "some Chinese" are writing their references like this. "Some Chinese" in this case apparently means you, a blocked Chinese editor.

Everything you have added is based on misrepresentation of the cited source, or based on a poor quality source. For instance, the following text that you wrote, :

环球网报道美国还把中国被俘人员当作动物一样进行解剖来医学试验。有人看到活体解剖而被美军挖去了双眼。

...is based on an internet discussion board,[12] which is not considered a WP:Reliable source for English Wikipedia. You are wasting your time here with your non-neutral attempt to change the facts of the battle. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry,but none of the source is blog source,it won't be just because you repeat "blog source"huanqiu.com is of course considered source for English wikipedia.You can seethis and this.The latter is worth mentioning because the referenced article is named"解放西藏史"（L LIBERATION OF TIBET）.And by all means this is not a discussion board,this is a public artice by all means just like the one of Dogan_Penjor_Rabgye entry. and it is never discussion board.Here is the words I cut,they includes "归来的中朝战俘控诉，美国为了做医学上的试验，还把中国被俘人员当作动物一样进行解剖。有些伤病的被俘人员，被美军抬去当作医学实验的小白鼠，挖出内脏做医学研究，或者把皮肤一块块剥下来留做试验，最后把剥得血淋淋的烂尸用草席卷起来丢掉。朝鲜人民军被俘人员"(you can go machinetranslate it to see what they mean),now you can see who added some words and who deleted some words unsigned comment added by Victorkkd (talk • contribs)

Article Hundred Regiments Offensive

I see this article has been changed many times. These changes and revert are always the same way. Now this article was changed a lot again. I see you involved that article. I want to ask whether you have reached a consensus for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.228.161 (talk • contribs)

Hello Madison person. Regarding the new additions by blocked-in-China editor Victorkkd, I have not yet taken the time to examine them. I have a few other things on my plate at the moment. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If you would like to challenge any material I add, go ahead and speak out.I have fixed the vandalism you did to suncheon(changing unknown back to unsourced number)Why do you hide behind IP?---Victorkkd 01:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorkkd (talk • contribs)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your edit on Max Hastings. It brought tears to my eyes. Cheers! Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Tears of laughter, tears of pain... ;^)

Thanks, man. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Request advice

Hey, Bink. As you know, I've been working on Jimi Hendrix for some time now, and its going to be a TFA on March 4. Well, now there is an editor who appears to be some kind of troll wanting to degrade the prose of the lead. I don't want to be perceived as bulling anyone, so what should I do? Will you please watch-list Hendrix, and help me out with any needed reversions? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hendrix is already on my watchlist, but I rarely look into the action I see there. If you are talking about these changes by Earl King Jr then I think there are good points where he removes some over-excited verbiage ("in the history of popular music"). Otherwise, his changes are not so controversial. The reader gets pretty much the same message as before. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

In this edit they introduced three variations of performing in three consecutive sentences. Also, do you really think that this edit is an improvement? I.e., "one of the most influential of electric guitarists", "He achieved fame in the US also and performed at", "became a number one album. Hendrix became the", "Jimi Hendrix died in 1970 accidentally". Do you really see these as improvements to an FA that will be a TFA in a couple of weeks? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any talk page discussion about the wording. If you start a discussion, I will weigh in. In accordance with my previous advice to you, I recommend staying off of Earl's user talk page. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC

I do not understand this edit summary at all - what do you mean the RfC was not "formally started"? StAnselm (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears you never placed the {{rfc|bio}} template on the page. That means the Geller discussion did not get assigned an official RfC number, and it is not listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All. Does that clear up the issue? Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh - I don't think you realise that the templates are removed by a bot after 30 days. I added the template here, and it was removed here. StAnselm (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha, that explains it. Thanks for the links. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Robert Palmer

Re your message about my "perpetuating a hoax about Robert Palmer"...first, it was a talk page. Secondly, the information about Robert Palmer's death on the Wiki page is completely false and has been proven so legally. I made NO edits on the Palmer page, I only posted factual information from the family on the TALK page. Don't threaten me again. Zabadu (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You posted this and then this on the Palmer talk page. The material you posted is a hornet's nest of BLP violations, without any reliable source to back it up. Wikipedia's set of rules regarding what can be written about living persons is so strong that it extends to any page on Wikipedia including talk pages. Please read the policy at WP:Biographies of living persons and see for yourself.

Regarding the Geraldine Edwards stuff, there has already been quite enough of this hoax. As you can see at User talk:Mark Arsten/Archive the sixth#Geraldine Edwards hoax, a person who has contributed anonymously from San Diego, California, has fabricated fake newspaper stories to perpetuate the notion that Geraldine Edwards was the girlfriend of several rockers, and that Mary Ambrose was a bad person, or an unimportant person. I see your contribution to the Robert Palmer talk page as being an extension of this San Diego editor's falsehoods, especially since you show yourself to be local to the San Diego area in the above links. My recommendation is that you bring only WP:Reliable sources forward when discussing the issue. Don't shoot from the hip. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this a pretty serious policy violation?

I noticed that the last couple of days you've been reverting dozens of IPs under the assumption that they are a banned editor, but have any of these IP addys been confirmed as being that editor? Are you reverting them before they are confirmed as though you are a one-man judge and jury? Please explain why you think its appropriate to remove comments from talk pages because you suspect the IP to be that of a banned user. Also, it looks like you reverted them three times in six hours; here, here and here. I know, you think they are a banned user, but do you really think that you can revert any IP that you suspect before they are confirmed? You cannot indeff an IP; therefore even if you are right that the original user was indeffed these IPs are not permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Again, reverting talk page comments that do not appear to be disruptive in violation of WP:TPO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• This is concerning, because Binksternet appears to be reverting and labeling this account a sock of a banned user, but its not yet been determined if it actually is a sock of that user. Why don't you wait until the investigation concludes? You can't just declare accounts to be socks and revert them under WP:DENY when they are not confirmed, can you? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• FTR, I'm not questioning the accuracy of Bink's accusations, but I think its highly inappropriate of him to label and revert an editor's talk page comments because he thinks they are a sock. This needs to be confirmed by a check-user before he starts mass reversions on the basis of socking. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you want me to do about it? Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

For starters you can stop pretending to be a "bully fighter", because you are as bad a bully as anybody I know, and secondly you can admit that you shouldn't revert talk page comments unless its in accordance with WP:TPO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors says to revert banned editors "without giving any further reason". That's the responsibility I've accepted on Wikipedia. I find that I am fairly good at spotting banned editors who violate their bans, so I have decided that I should help Wikipedia by keeping them out. What do you do when you see a contribution by a banned editor? Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Whose the banned editor? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It's HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You might be right, but do you see where I'm going with this? And anyway, even if they are HC, you can't unilaterally decide that an entire range should be blocked, can you? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

An "entire range" has in fact been blocked many times on Wikipedia, usually expiring after a certain time period. Personally, since I am not an admin, I would have to argue successfully at WP:AN for a range to be blocked. In this particular case I have seen edits by IPs within the range that were clearly not from HarveyCarter, so a rangeblock would have collateral damage. Instead, I determine case by case whether the IP editor has the style of HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, I also know about that stuff, but in your contributions its clear that in the last couple of day you've reverted several IPs in that range and as far as I can tell, none of them have been confirmed as even being on the same continent as HC. Is that accurate, or am I confused about an important detail? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

HarveyCarter is always in the south-east of England, as are all of the 92.11.xx IPs. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of rollback

Per WP:Rollback policy: "Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism and should never be used to revert good faith edits or in content disputes." However, in this edit you seem to be rolling back numerous uncontentious changes and several improvements that are obviously not vandalism. Can you please explain how this is not an abuse of rollbacker privs? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Another apparently inappropriate use of rollback during a content dispute. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Another, this seems to be a content issue and not vandalism. Please explain? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Another, this might not be a great series of edits, but is it vandalism? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• It really looks to me that Bink has been using rollback in content disputes. Maybe I'm missing something here, but where is the consensus that the article will not contain any info about Cara guitars? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Again, unless I'm missing something here, Bink is using rollback at a broad swath of articles to control content. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Another. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't vandalism. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• I really hope that all of these have good explanations, because it looks like widespread rollback abuse from afar. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

First point is an important one, so pay attention: I don't have rollback. Got it?

Second point is that WP:Twinkle says "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." I make sure to use an appropriate edit summary. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This has no edit summary. Neither does this or this. Neither does this one. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• In which one of the above twinkle rollbacks did you use an edit summary? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• The Pata reversion was a banned editor named Chowkatsun9. Per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors, I reverted the banned editor "without giving any further reason". The Tonka thing was the continuation of a hoax, so it was vandalism. The Gene Simmons guy was simply trying to promote his stuff, so I should have used an edit summary. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, I assumed that at least a few were justified. What happened at Richard Burton? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• The Richard Burton guy using IP 92.11.xx is banned editor HarveyCarter, so I reverted him "without giving any further reason". Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• So, you've confirmed that all IPs in that range are HarveyCarter? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• There are stylistic factors that come into play with the spotting of sockpuppets. HarveyCarter has a 'tell' to his work, but I will not violate WP:BEANS by saying what it is. When I was looking at various contributions by 92.11.xx IPs I saw some that were clearly not HarveyCarter because they were completely outside of his several areas of interest, or completely foreign to his style. Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know about all that. What I meant was: how do you know that HC is editing from that IP range? Has a check-user confirmed that IP range is abusing Wikipedia, or are you "acting alone"? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• If you wish me to stop me from fighting banned editors you'll need to find support for such a thing at WP:ANI. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, I suppose you're right about that, but remember that walls have eyes! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Which banned editor is this? Or this one? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm done here on my talk page with your game of 20 Questions about my Twinkle reversions. If you still harbor serious concerns about the matter you can take it up at WP:ANI. Best wishes, Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ringo Starr FA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I noticed that you include Ringo Starr as one of the 20 FAs that you "helped" get through FAC. I'm curious, what are you criteria for claiming this distinction? You provided a prose review at FAC, but you didn't support, and as far as I can tell you've never edited the article. FWIW, that's the same phrase that I use on my user page, that I "helped" get Ringo Starr to FA. Is that what you do, do you list every FA as having helped if you only commented at the FAC? Because I'm pretty sure that's not how its done; you only "helped" if you were a co-nom at FAC, but I could be wrong. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) OK, I'm going to jump in here. GabeMc, I think you need to watch your step. I think your first two questions were pertinent ones that I think Binksternet needs to answer. But three criticisms is not a good look, especially since this last one is not policy-based. One more question and it's going to sound like harassment. StAnselm (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait now, you're already dropping the "H" word. He has thick skin and he's never handled me with kid gloves. I'm just curious, because it borders on fraud, IMO, to claim that you helped 20 articles get to FA. I hear you though, but its absolutely not harassment to hold someone accountable, and in fact using that term so loosely might violate WP:NLT, since it has legal connotations. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am using the h-word. I have linked to Wikipedia:Harassment so that there is no doubt about the context in which I am using the word. The meaning and gravity of harassment does not depend on how thick the victim's skin is. StAnselm (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, and I didn't mean to imply that it did, but that can be used to protect people who really need to answer for inappropriate edits. Is there a limit on how many "H" word warnings you can give? Because at some point you are harassing me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

GabeMc, you can take a hike with your hostile questions about my criteria for what I credit mysellf with on my own user page. For the record, I performed a very deep review of the article in question, as can be seen at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ringo Starr/archive1. When I do such a thorough review I reward myself with a partial credit, by way of the userbox which says "This user helped promote x featured articles on Wikipedia." Did I help? Yes. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You've made zero edits to the article and you didn't even support its FAC promotion! Really? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If I was a significant contributor then I would have used the following userbox:

This user has written or significantly contributed to x Featured articles on Wikipedia.

I was not a significant contributor but I performed a very deep analysis, one that took a lot of time and effort, which is why I used the following userbox instead:

This user helped promote x featured articles on Wikipedia.

So now I have explained myself quite enough. It's my userpage, my rules. Stick a fork in it—this thread is done. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clapton talk page

Hi, in view of this, I think you might be interested in this, a revert of this, for which you thanked me a few days ago. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've responded with some detail in the edit summary. Hopefully that supplies enough information for people to understand why, and so they do not restore the hoax material. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Trying to keep any discussion about this away from the article talk page as much as possible, I also left a little note at User talk:Bob Caldwell CSL#Clapton talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's different. I restored the material because it was removed without explanation. If it's untrue, then it should be removed. I withdraw my objection. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

For more detail, check out the discussion I had with administrator Mark Arsten: User talk:Mark Arsten/Archive the sixth#Geraldine Edwards hoax. This stuff has been going on for too long, with absolutely no reliable sources to back it up. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Blitz

Hi Trekphiler and Binksternet. I'm sorry to bother you both but I see you have both had previous involvement of the WP:DENY variety with Talk:The Blitz at Talk:The Blitz#Reason for Blitz and Talk:The Blitz#This article is apparently written by British nationalists. I'm now looking at the new section Talk:The Blitz#Britain bombed Germany first and wondering if there are some similarities, or is it just another editor with similar interests? It doesn't have to be the same person, of course, and I would prefer to AGF, but I did wonder a little ... the discussion there isn't really getting productive and seems likely to plough the same furrow, though I don't want to upset anyone who is sincerely trying to improve the article. If either/both of you felt like having a look I would be most grateful; at the same time, if you don't wish to then no-one will die! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This person is the same as MrFalala, who was indeffed by John. I think MrFalala was a sockpuppet of HarveyCarter, and of course I think the same about XavierKnightley. I will start an SPI. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much; I really appreciate your help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

your edit warring at another user's Talk page

I am well aware of what P requested. I am also well aware that P cannot simply request that Wikipedia guidelines be ignored and expect that request to respected. You ought to be aware of that as well. While I endeavour to accommodate the wishes of others, this particular matter furthermore happens to be a new topic to which the request is not obviously or clearly equally applicable, and is properly addressed on the user's Talk page because it is too general to have any particular relevance to the article Talk page. It is also a case that is so clearly covered by policy that there would be no serious "discussion" should it occur in a forum that involved more editors. If you insist on deleting the statements of other editors, not just on your Talk page but on the Talk pages of others, then replace the statement with a notice of your own advising the recipient of the appropriate applicable policy. This is, by P's own admission, her third reversion. It accordingly must be discussed instead of just continuing to edit war. There is no particular need for me to address P. There is, however, a need from Wikipedia's perspective for either P and I to discuss the issue and/or for P to be notified as to why her reversions violate policy. If, with no small indulgence, we assume that another editor's Talk page is any any of your business in the first place, if your intervention is required it is required on this point. By the way, this is a request to ask you to stop edit warring. You demand total and unconditional respect for P's request yet have no respect for my requests. Do you see the inconsistency there?--Brian Dell (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Quit bullying her. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The hell I am. She reverted me. A third time. I accordingly opened a discussion in the appropriate location. Like I said, replace my statement with your own if you like. What else is going to stop her edit warring? Or do you care about that at all? It appears that what you really care about is viewing Wikipedia as a war zone with P on your "team". May I again ask you to look at the substance of the issue here? Say something to P about that and there is no need at all for me to say anything to her.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Stay on the article talk page with your concerns, or take them to ANI. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Why do user Talk pages exist? Are you prepared to allow the possibility that some matters are most appropriately addressed on a user Talk page? I have already explained why the article talk page is not appropriate here: it is a waste of other editors' time to have them read my statement there. I have already invited you to take an action that would involve my staying off the user Talk page in question while still having communication that might reduce the edit warring and that's for you to address the substance of the edit warring, yet you have refused to do so, instead making it your business to gag me when trying to speak to a 3rd party about her edit warring. If you have nothing at all to say about the substance of the issue and only wish to attend to your particular beef with me as an individual, then you should be taking your concern to ANI. My primary concern is with Wikipedia, not disputing with you or P on an admin noticeboard, but since you insist and I've already said I would do so if necessary, fine, I'll raise the issue of your edit warring (which is more objectionable than P's) at the edit warring noticeboard.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that is driving my actions here is that you were asked by Petrarchan47 on January 31 to stay off of her user talk page. She said:

We do have the right to ask people to leave their talk pages alone - and I am asking you this now. I will engage you on the talk page of articles IF you can keep your arguments concise and based in RS, not in OR or SYNTH. I am not into drama and will not engage with this type of energy... From here, with regard to gripes you have about my behaviour, do not make them in the edit summaries. (And I will not either.) Take concerns to a noticeboard, even an ANI, and yes, I will listen to what the community has to say.

You acknowledged that request on January 31. You then proceeded to ignore the request with this series of edits later the same day—an exceedingly disrespectful move on your part. I removed these comments 18 minutes later. On February 2 you posted again on her talk page, a hateful comment accusing her of falsehood and telling her you would not pay any attention to her response, and I removed that post as well.

Edit-warring your accusatory comments into her talk page[13][14][15] shows that you do not respect her. Why do you think your posts on her talk page will improve the encyclopedia if their message and very presence demonstrate that you do not respect her? Feel free to follow her admonition and take your concerns to ANI. Beware of the boomerang, of course; a post to ANI always shines investigative light upon oneself. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

What is exceedingly disrespectful is denying someone else their free speech without any consideration at all of its content. I let P have the last word in that thread anyway (my reply remains deleted). P has just now reappeared to continue to edit war over the Tice bio and her edit summary suggests that she is completely oblivious to my referring her to the Wikipedia policy that quite clearly indicates that she is mistaken about a total ban on Youtube material. You can take a bow for perpetuating this totally unnecessary edit war by protecting her ignorance. How about allowing something else to "drive your actions" here, namely, the interests of the project?--Brian Dell (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't have 100% free speech on Wikipedia. Instead, you have the various freedoms of speech that are allowed you by the system. In this case you are not allowed on Petra's talk page.

Regarding the content dispute which you keep bringing up, I have not looked into it and I don't have the interest right now, since other concerns are in front of me. In general, content disputes should remain on the article talk page. When you bring a content dispute to a single user's talk page, you are in danger of being confrontational and bullying. You also deny the other article editors a chance to comment. I always recommend that folks keep all the content issues on the article talk page. If you have a personal problem with Petrarchan47, take it to ANI. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I am already quite aware that you have little interest in the substance of my editing, and that the "other concern" you have chosen to put in front of yourself is editing a user Talk page to delete my comments despite the absence of any invitation from that user for you to do so and without any respect for my request to mind your own business. I did not claim "100% free speech" here. Wikipedia is not my private website. What I objected to was gagging me without any consideration of the substance of what I said. I'd note you don't take your own advice here, since you appeared on my Talk page uninvited to make the (inaccurate) claim that Athan Theoharis is not "left-leaning", which is clearly giving your opinion on a content dispute. But I will grant that you do indeed frequently appear uninvited on user talk pages to go at users directly instead of discussing the "content" issues created by the user's editing. The wonder is that you somehow consider this LESS "confrontational and bullying" than if you focused on Wikipedia instead of Wikipedia's editors. You don't have to remind me that using article Talk pages may deny the other article editors a chance to comment since that's precisely my point: other editors should be involved when other editors have a potential interest. When there isn't a reasonable expectation of either their interest or involvement, their time shouldn't be wasted. When you, by your own admission, have no interest in the substance of what I have to say to Petrachan or, for that matter, the content issue what makes you think others are interested? This is not the first time Petrarchan has edit warred with me and trying to solve the problems means trying different approaches. You say I am not allowed to take a particular approach that you believe, possible erroneously (when did she say "never again, on any other topic, try to discuss with me here"?), that Petrarchan does not prefer. If Petrarchan does not prefer to discuss the content issue ANYWHERE should that be "respected"? What needs to be respected here is the project. May I add that there is a huge difference between Petrarchan removing my comments and you doing so. The difference is that if Petrarchan removes it, I can reasonably conclude that she's read it, so any argument for my putting it back is vastly weaker.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I find it odd that you would like to discuss with me what happened to your comments on Petrarchan47's user talk page after you placed them there, rather than why you insisted on placing them there in contravention of her request.

Petrarchan47 "Thanked" me for this removal on January 31 and also for this removal on February 2. You can check for yourself by plowing through the logs at Special:Log/thanks. Did Petrarchan47 ask me directly to remove your comments? No, but my previous conversations with her led me to to the conclusion that she would greatly appreciate it. When closing your 3RRN thread with no action, Amatulic wrote that it was best you stay off of Petrarchan47's talk page. Amatulic also wrote that I should allow Petra to make her own removals. Of course, if you follow Amatulic's advice, no removals will be needed. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your characterization of the thread as a 3RRN thread instead a thread about edit warring is revealing of your mentality. I am quite aware of the fact that you did not technically violate 3RR. The issue here is your vision of Wikipedia as some sort of battleground with two armies going to war with each other. You evidently think your highest calling is to do whatever you guess a "fellow soldier" would "greatly appreciate." We are, in fact, here to build an encyclopaedia, something you admit you are not interested in given your refusal to look at the substance of the dispute you jumped into here or, for that matter, the substance of what I had to say. You quote Petrarchan attaching conditions to her engagement on article Talk pages, conditions she vigorously enforces by refusing to address anything more detailed than she would like. I try another approach and you jump in to keep her ignorant of what I had to say. The bottom line here is that you THINK she asked you to keep her ignorant of anything I might happen to say to her that was direct to her and you think this request for no communication serves the project. You said over at the 3RRN that "I have not stopped you from discussing issues with Petrarchan47" but that is quite obviously not true when you called for a total "interaction ban". I don't doubt that this would suit Petrarchan given that she is not inclined to answer my questions on article Talk pages anyway.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Who are you quoting with that bit about "fellow soldier"? I didn't say it. It's laughable to me—the idea that I'm not here to build Wikipedia.

Regarding an IBAN, it would take some time for it to be proposed, discussed and implemented, if the community thinks it is appropriate. The process has not even started, which is why I said I have not tried to stop you. If and until an IBAN is enacted, I will not try to stop you from discussing article content issues with Petra and any others on the relevant article talk pages. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

BDell555 is 'not' discussing the edit war on the Tice talk page. Over and over mistruths spew out and it is getting tiring. If he is going to continue to edit pages I work on (pages of whistleblowers for whom he has repeatedly expressed contempt, even placing "conspiracy theorist" tags on their articles), then I am going to need an intermediary to deal with him. I also need help at the Snowden page where both BDell555 and Dr F are focussing all of their energy right now. Is there such a thing as a babysitter for editors or specific pages? petrarchan47tc 21:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The last four edits to the Tice talk page are by me. If I make that five you're suddenly going to reappear? More important than an arbitrary edit count is all the answered questions I have posed on various article Talk pages. If you are seriously interested in a discussion you could respond to what I said on your Talk page by bringing it back and responding to it or moving somewhere else if you want it somewhere else.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) appreciate very much, Binksternet, that you have supported me in this way. Contrary to the advice of the closer, I would appreciate you to continue on as you have. I don't want to read or be forced to see hostile attacks from anyone, and because of what you did, I didn't have to see them all. I absolutely cannot and will not tolerate the hate coming from BDell555, and am wondering why anyone has to. petrarchan47tc 21:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification of your position with regard to talk page removals. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

What's "laughable" is construing what I said as "hate" speech. Since when does quoting policy and linking to websites constitute "hate"? This is an excuse to avoid substantive engagement. I don't deny that you've made additions to Wikipedia, Binksternet, what's at issue is the fact you remove others' work without even bothering to look at it, as this edit summary reveals given the fact the edit summary bears no relation at all to the content. I'm on the "wrong" team in your view - too "right wing" given the Fox vs Guardian contrast you draw? - (I'm using scare quotes here, not quoting you) therefore you revert me. If you have another explanation for that reversion please give it here. What I am asking you to do here is take a look past the uniform you imagine the editor to be wearing and consider what the editor is doing.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you have evidently decided to reject this advice, since you decided to complain to me about detailing the assassination threats when it was in fact your "fellow solder" (again, these are scare quotes, meaning that I take your apparent presumption that Petrarchan ought to be deemed your comrade in arms with a large grain of salt) who has been wanting more detail there, including the "bullet in the head" part (the only reason she took that phrase out is because, like you, she often edit wars with me by just blindly reverting; i.e. not looking at the content of my edits in detail to see if parts of them give what she has asked for) and I was the one objecting to all the detail.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The article talk page is the place for this content discussion. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Correction on WP:Fringe

Binksternet, another user has written an extensive post illustrating your misunderstanding of WP:Fringe policy as it relates to the LvMI. I suggest you (someone who admits to knowing nothing about the subject, yet simultaneously is somehow certain of his conclusions about it) read it. User:Srich32977 could also benefit from it. Steeletrap (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hoppe on MR's "fringe existence" in academia

When Hoppe says that Rothbard led a "fringe existence" in academia, how do you react to this? Do you think Hoppe is lying, or that his longtime UNLV/Mises Institute colleague was misinformed about Rothbard's reception in academia? Please note that "fringe" for purposes of WP is defined broadly as any view that "depart[s] significantly" from the mainstream. Steeletrap (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you misrepresented the source, a violation of WP:NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If that were the case it would be a violation of WP:V not NPOV. What's wrong with being fringe anyway? Jesus was fringe in his time. However on the subject of Rothbard: Those who are notable academics have tens or hundreds of times the citations and publications that Rothbard achieved. We don't need to argue about the semantics of Fringe. Rothbard's notability lies elsewhere, per GNG. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice

I've closed the merge discussion at Katyn massacre. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just fooling around, you know...

it's late... gotta keep entertained somehow...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll hoist a pint in your honor. Binksternet (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion invitation

Just a neutral notice that the Russell Hantz article is on the chopping block again. U got any thoughts on it? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your user page & what to do with the Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War article

The audio board in your user page image is impressive. Most of my audio work was with battery powered, 3 or 4 input / 1 or 2 output mixers weighing about a pound! My favorite headphone was the Beyerdynamic DT-48. My current pair is so old (20 years) that the cables from the Y to the transducers have cracked broken. I've decided to sacrifice an inexpensive Sony headset for cables as Beyer wants near $80 for just the part above the Y.

Maybe we can swap highs and lows of audio sometime. Like, oh, say, accidently hitting a VP in the knee with a Sennheiser MKH 416.

Thanks for the Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War title suggestion. I've been actively editing Wikipedia less than a year, with no contributions longer than a sentence or two (I spend way to much time watching the flow and structure). Can you give me some advice on how to proceed? I am willing to learn, and try to read what I type at least three times before hitting the 'Save page' button. (In a way, I guess, Wikipedia has some similarities my work: no re-do's and never throw anything away.) - Neonorange (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh heh... the "impressive" mixer in my photo is one that I love to hate. It is overly complicated and absolutely counterintuitive. If I could give its designers a piece of my mind... When I get my choice for a digital mixer it is a Yamaha or an Avid (formerly known as Digidesign). The photo shows me operating a mixer that was specified by someone else.

Sounds like your usual mixer is the classic Shure M268 or its later cousins. I have done precious little sound recording work outdoors but that little bit flowed through a Shure running on nine-volt batteries.

Regarding the topic of opposition to the Vietnam War, I just want to point out that I am hardly involved with articles about the Vietnam War, as compared to articles about lots of other topics. I started the articles Draft-card burning and Gary Rader (a famous draft card burner), and I've worked on the Silent majority, Swiftboating and Scientific Wild-Ass Guess articles, each of which has a strong Vietnam War component, but there are other editors that do a lot more Vietnam era research.

In order to learn how to edit, you should just go ahead and edit! If you make mistakes you will ideally take the experience as a lesson.

I see people here take two basic approaches to editing: one is the careful check-everything-twice version, and the other is much more staccato—a quick series of changes geared toward getting some data into the encyclopedia before the browser crashes or the internet line goes down. Either way works, as long as you quickly correct any problems you create.

An aside: I highly recommend the book Chickenhawk by a helicopter pilot who fought in the Air Cav. I think the book is an amazing revelation of war emotions.

Enjoy yourself here! Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive

It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:

• This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
• Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
• The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
• An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh my!

Working on photos on Wikipedia Commons, I noted a couple of pages you might like to take a look at. User file list [16] compared to Wikipedia article [17], with file history [18] looks like a fan page, promotion or self-promotion. I have no idea if they're notable enough for such a page; I suspect you will know more about music related things. And here's one even more puzzling: This Wikipedia User page Is actually an article about "Sculpture in the Parklands" , mostly written by Disgracedminister, see [19] here... who also moved over photos from Wikipedia [20], [21], and [22] which are all works of living artists. The conversion of a user page (with redirect) to an apparent article (without warning box) is a new one to me. I have subsequently marked for deletion four more pictures of this sculpture park which were added in early January since the artist Michael Bulfin (featured in those four uploads) is still living although that may be a mistake under the Irish FOP thing, which I still find confusing. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama laws are a confusing mess of contradictions from nation to nation. I hate such laws—I think the US should allow photos of outdoor sculpture—but Wikipedia must abide by them. I will take a look at your links and see if there's anything I can help with. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Irish sculpture garden article's photos are all okay because Ireland allows photos of permanent outdoor sculpture. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup, but what about the User Page that's appearing to be an article ?? This Wikipedia User page reads like an article on the sculpture garden. He redirected his user page to an "article" but it's only in his userspace. Maybe it was a complete misunderstanding and he thought he was taking it to mainspace? Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a real article, in mainspace: Sculpture in the Parklands. I removed his redirect from user space to main space, as that kind of thing is not allowed. I also tagged the article regarding its problems. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you know...

Did you know that the Saguache Crescent is the last US newspaper using linotype? Do you think that this would work for a "Did you know" article? I think that it is ready, however I did mix the refs up a bit as I worked on it and need to fix that. I've never done a Did you know before and would need some help in how to go about it. Gandydancer (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The meets DYK rules for 5x expansion. In its modest form before you started expanding it, it had 316 characters of readable prose. Multiply that times 5 and you needed 1580 characters. I count 1637 characters in your current version. I have a little "DYK tool" installed, for checking whether a DYK is good, and it reports incorrectly that your expansion work is not enough. I see that the date and the character count expansion is perfectly fine. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, anyway I did find some more info that goes back to the paper's very beginning that I want to add so that will make it a little longer--needed or not. What do you think about the fact that it is not divided up into sections? It seemed to me that it is terribly short (and I've now run out of info) and divisions may chop it up. What do you think of the writing--be honest because my feelings will not be hurt as I do not consider myself to be a very good writer. Should I ask a good copy editor to take a look at it? How does the process work?--I submit it and a willing editor makes the decision? Gandydancer (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is good enough writing for DYK, which is a celebration of new content, not a highlighting of the most polished prose. It's ready, it does not need sections. You already have at least one reference per paragraph, so you're good.

The process at DYK is arcane, despite the best efforts to make it easier. You start by reading WP:DYK. Then you might read WP:Did you know/Learning DYK (The Unofficial Guide). Then you go to T:TDYK which is a big page, slow to load for people with slow connections.

Scroll down to "How to post a new nomination" (which has some more links to "how-to" pages, if you still need some pointers.) You then put "Saguache Crescent" (without the quotes) into the space that says "YOUR ARTICLE TITLE", and click "Create nomination".

After that, you fill out the new page.

First you delete the following parameters because they do not apply to this entry: article2, author2, image, caption. Then you fill out the remaining parameters, with a catchy hook of your own composition in the "hook" parameter, perhaps using ALT1 for an alternate hook if you can't make up your mind, status=expanded, and perhaps a comment if you want to explain anything to the reviewer.

You save this page which will be called Template:Did you know nominations/Saguache Crescent. You return to the overweight T:TDYK page and scroll down to the February 23 section and hit the edit button. You will add
{{Did you know nominations/Saguache Crescent}}
to the list of Feb 23 entries.

Now you have to go and review another article, unless you choose to start with this step (I always start with this step.) You review somebody's DYK nomination and then you go back to your Template:Did you know nominations/Saguache Crescent page and write in the name of the article you reviewed. This, too, is tricky for beginners. Maybe I can review a nomination for you to use as yours. Binksternet (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) Actually, one's first five DYKs are exempt from a QPQ. It should just be mentioned in the nomination template that it's the editor's first one and a QPQ will not be required.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's right! Thanks for the helpful note. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I read the pages you suggested, but when it came to the actual instructions I quickly became lost. If this would be something I had to do to continue to do regular editing I would force my self to spend the time (for me that means a LOT of time) to learn this. But I doubt I'll ever do it again and it would not, for me, be time well spent, to say nothing of the extreme pain of it all. I have no idea how long it takes an experienced editor...a few minutes?...an hour? to file a suggestion. If it is a reasonable amount of time but nobody will do it for me, I'm just going to skip it, though I think it is a good one, certainly as good (and a lot better than the ones I see listed today--I don't read it daily) as any. My hook would be: Did you know

• ...that the Saguache Crescent is the last newspaper in the United States, and perhaps even the world, to use linotype? Perhaps "the world" part would draw some flack, but certainly Coombs is an expert on the subject, right? Gandydancer (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll nominate your new article expansion. It was good before; now with your later expansion it is even better. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I much prefer my hook to *...that the Saguache Crescent has been identified as the last newspaper to set type with a linotype machine? I don't write very well but I do know how to sell and mine is better (I think :D ). Yours sounds boring but mine makes one wonder, "well, what is a 'linotype' anyway, and why is it the last one in the world???". Gandydancer (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put your hook in as the alternate choice, without the "perhaps". Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I will fix the close paraphrasing and check for more. I do try very hard to avoid it, but sometimes it slips in because I'm using several sources at once and they often just have snippets of information. As for the other changes that they want, I'm not sure and am starting to regret that I ventured into this at all... Gandydancer (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I asked Eric for help and I'm glad I did. He went through it and I think it's ready. BTW, I am so goddamn sick of reading about how he is chasing people away. Some people want to turn this place into a bunch of zombies that piss and moan about the ones that really do the work around here and make magic sparkles happen. Eric is chasing people away about as much as there is anything wrong with your interactions here (per your try for admin). How long will it take now? Thanks for all your help Bink. Colorado is my native state and if the truth be known, my heart never left. Gandydancer (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

3rd level warning for first edit

Hi Binksternet, it looks like you gave a third level warning for this. Then in Huggle I reverted a removal of content, so a 4th level (final) warning was issued on their talk page. Now they have removed that content again. If I revert again they'll get reported after a mere two warnings. You probably had a reason for that first 3rd level warning to their first edit, so will you take care of it further? Thanks and cheers! - DVdm (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The editor is a long-term abuse case, an IP from Peru who obsesses about the Bee Gees, especially about their birth in England. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#A_different_case:_genre_warrior_working_from_Peru_IPs for more details. I have just reported the IP to ARV, but the dude will be back. Please keep an eye out for 190.23x IPs making disruptive changes. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Will do. By the way, I had the wrong diff in my message. Corrected now. It was about a removal at Jon Anderson. Thanks for having taken care of that. - DVdm (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Soto

Bink, that journal is not notable or noteworthy. The publisher is really beside the point for the claim you're making. If Soto is not notable as an economist, then what is the basis for his notability as you see it. I reviewed the AfD and a lot of it was comment from a sockpuppet of banned user Karmaisking. Please add some content that would demonstrate Soto's notability on solid ground. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I am also curious about your reversions here, Bink. What research have you done to make you think the journal is notable or noteworthy? Steeletrap (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files

Some of the files that you have uploaded may be unfree. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 26#OTRS pending since November. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Adams

The amazon comments are instructive, but "Seriously, you can't doubt Adams' findings unless you live in a feminist swamp of self-delusion."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I enjoy the feminist swamp; it's my home. <grin>

Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Reminds me of a saying about honey which I'll keep to myself for now... keep up the good work!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia on a good day

[23], eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I might be arguing in my spare time...

Binksternet (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Stevizard

Are evolutionists dictating the contents of articles on creationism?

Yes, you deleted my edits because they seemed to support the creationist viewpoint. However, if you look closely, you'll find that they neither endorse nor criticise either point of view. Here are a few indisputable facts:

1. Evolution does NOT have a single living witness
2. Evolution lacks physical proof (the fossil record is incomplete and lacks ALL transitionary forms)
3. Creation does NOT have a single living witness
4. Creation lacks physical proof (but often provides superior explanations for the existing evidence - sometimes borrowed by evolutionists)

Evolutionists and creationists use the exact same evidence to prove their points

Each posits a different explanation for the physical evidence, but neither side may say they used the scientific method to provde their claims because neither can be observed nor repeated.

Sorry, but that's the best that either of them can do. Nobody can PROVE their point. That's why they are both called, "THEORIES".

Every subject deserves fairness

However, anyone that is not firmly within the evolutionist camp can see this article is not neutral nor even-handed. It reads as though it was written by an evolutionist, who totally discounts the possibility of creation. If we accept this, then shouldn't a creationist write the article on evolution? Honestly, doesn't it make more sense to allow evolutionists to explain their side and allow creationists to explain theirs? Why allow evolutionists to criticize the creationists and not allow the reverse? It makes no sense. It is not neutral, neither fair nor even-handed.

For example, I removed "Christian Fundamentalist" and replaced it with "Christians, Muslims, and Jews"

While Christian Fundamentalists do oppose evolution, the facts are that not all Christians that oppose evolution are fundamentalists, others are

• Presbyterians
• Greek Orthodox
• Moravians
• Lutherans
• Catholics
• Baptists
• Christian Missionary Alliance
• Jehovah's Witnesses, and many more.

These demoninations represent many HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people. If you think all of the demoninations I just mentioned are "fundamentalists," you are sadly mistaken. The only two that are often (not always) fundamentalists are Baptists and Christian Missionary Alliance. There are many Baptist churches that are NOT fundamentalist at all. I was raised Lutheran, which makes me VERY FAR from a fundamentalist, and I can tell you for a fact that the vast majority of Lutherans throughout the world believe in creationism. Using the term "Christian Fundamentalist" is inflammatory and derogatory and portrays supporters of creationism as a very small fringe group of lunatics (very demeaning), and not the MILLIONS OF ORDINARY CHRISTIANS THAT THEY REALLY ARE.

• The Muslim religion universally rejects evolution. This includes all of the 22 Arab states (450 million people).
• The Rabbinical Jews in the US and Israel as a nation (20 million) rejects evolution.

Why not allow the real picture to be seen? Shouldn't we have a count of the scientists that support evolution? Perhaps we should say that only 50,000 scientists uphold evolution. (However, I doubt there are more than just a few thousand.)

Are evolutionists really that afraid of creationism? If so, what does that say about the purported "proofs" of evolution.

How fair can you be?

Well, I could go on to defend my other edits, but let's see how fair you can be. Do you really think it fair to say, "Christian Fundamentalists" and not mention the other ONE-HALF BILLION PEOPLE holding this same belief? Or are you saying that they are all in reality just a bunch of "Christian Fundamentalists?"

If you disallow this edit, then I would be wasting effort upon effort to defend the others. However, if you do permit this edit, I will gladly explain my other edits and would be happy to entertain the opinions of others as well.

Thank you,
Stevizard
Not a lunatic - but just trying to be fair.

Thanks for posting a rant/screed on my talk page. This is the kind of text that I glance at and choose not to read, because of its shouting capital letters and its absence of arguments based on Wikipedia policies. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You're drawing some odd stuff these days, that's for sure. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)