User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

Ray of Light and other things....

¡Hola!, gracias por su respuesta. Gracias porque se tomó la molestia de leer en un idioma ajeno al suyo y contestar. Pues yo me he quedado satisfecho con lo que dijo: "Furthermore, I would like to point out the same problem could have happened with Ray of Light—that various news and magazine writers looked at the 20 million figure on Wikipedia and repeated it without checking". Pero, también me gustaría pedirle un favor, como yo no soy nativo del idioma inglés (lo entiendo, pero escribirlo es lo que me cuesta), que realizara este tipo de censo con álbumes que la verdad, tienen un problema con sus ventas como Ray of Light, Thriller por ejemplo (que son exageradísimas) y lo más seguro es que sea un "Wiki hoax"; recuerde que medios de más de cien años han copiado información de Wikipedia sin ver si son verídicas o falacias, The Irish Times (1859) por ejemplo. Gracias nuevamente por toda la atención. Saludos cordiales , Chrishonduras (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is a huge problem. I would like to see all the album sales figures be assessed the same way all over Wikipedia. Ideally, the assessment would be strict, limited to firmly established sales results. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Political activities of the Koch brothers: what's next?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the RFC ending with a consensus ruling. Mangoe (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

In situations where I beat my head against an unyielding problem for hours, days or weeks without making any progress, I eventually cease my involvement and focus elsewhere. Short of ousting the most vociferous obstructionist editors, I don't have an answer. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've been to ARBCOM with a case much like this before. Mangoe (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That one worked very well. It would be great to see such a result applied everywhere it is needed. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

I started a discussion on this at WP:ORN on user:Arzel edits on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. It can be found here.

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)

|- |

In This Issue
Featured editorial: "Drive-By Reviews": A Retrospective About Reviews During Backlog Drives Project News: A backlog elimination drive is being held now at GAN.	Good Articles of the Month: Our picks for November, 150+ promotions. GA Task Forces: Results from the Backlog Elimination RfC Member News: 227 members of WikiProject Good Articles and counting

---

• Read this newsletter
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 December 2012

|}

David Irving

Hi Binksternet. I removed "holocaust denier" from the introductory sentence of David Irving, but you (and someone else) seem to have a problem with this.

I thought that the purpose of the introductory sentence was to name them, and to list what occupation they do/did. Is this not correct? All other people seem to have their occupation there, rather than things they're known to be linked to.

I'm new to Wikipedia, so is there perhaps a guide somewhere explaining it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeroy (talk • contribs) 23:43, December 5, 2012

In Wikipedia biographies, there's no cut-and-dried formula restricting the first sentence to career only. Usually the first sentence says the most notable thing about a person. Holocaust denial overshadows everything else Irving has done; it is his main claim to fame whether he likes it or not. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I see, thank you. How do you sign things by the way? I noticed wherever I edit on a talk page, it says "unsigned" whereas everyone else has a signature with date/time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeroy (talk • contribs) 23:58, December 5, 2012

Sign with four tildes in a row, like this: ~~~~

Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Request comment

Your input would be appreciated here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

San Bernardino

At San Bernardino, if we both acknowledge that Greater Los Angeles Area's presence is debatable, don't you think it does less harm to leave the (possibly redundant) information in the article (where it was put by a third party) than to remove it? I've spent quite a bit of time on more important issues in the article, and it still needs more. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think "Southern California", "Inland Empire", and "55 miles east of downtown L.A." are suitable for the first paragraph. Mentioning L.A. again in the first paragraph is too much.

Of course there are other issues that are more important; this one should be easy to get right. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I am looking to hire an experienced Wiki writer to help us with managing wiki content on wikipedia for a popular personality form India.They are always creating malicious content on Wiki against him to malign him can you help or guide me? my email is sachinbatra009@yahoo.in Sachinbatra007 (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite cynical enough to take money for the purpose of defending a biography article against published negative accounts. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Double-warning?

Hi there. I wasn't sure if you noticed my warning to Bjkijkjr83 (talk · contribs) when you left your edit-warring warning. If you did notice it, and thought it was still a good idea to be explicit about the policies, I understand, but seeing as he hasn't edited the article since my warning, I thought it would be a good idea to check in with you to see if the reiteration was intentional or not. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Your sudden appearance with in-depth knowledge of WP editing practices is a charade I don't want to play. I think you are a soon-to-be-blocked sockpuppet and I don't care to waste my time communicating. Regarding your concern here, I will do what needs to be done at Bjkijkjr83's page. Nonetheless, please stay off of my talk page. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Francophonie&Androphilie/WHOIS. I've already been blocked, and exhonerated, and a CheckUser's been run. I don't know what I've done to piss you off, but I hope you might WP:assume good faith more in the future. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not as gullible. Stay away from my talk page. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As it happens, this user has a good explanation for his rapid acquisition of some skill in wikipedia. Your opinion is your own, but you have been here long enough to know that accusations of sockpuppetry made without foundation are not approved of. To suggest that checkuser clearance indicates gullibility is IMHO not reasonable.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the various discussions surrounding the block and unblock of Francophonie&Androphilie and I did not see that a checkuser search was run. Or do you mean "checkuser" as in a person who can run the check (Coren) but who in this case has apparently opted against doing so? Anyway, I'm less inclined to doubt F&A after seeing all the positive things he's done, but I'm going to let more time pass before I change my mind completely. Binksternet (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Binksternet. Seeing your above comment, I'm inclined to comply with your request to stay off your talk page. I've said in the past that I understand what could seem suspicious, and if it takes you a bit longer for those suspicions to go away, so be it. Here is the record of the CheckUser being done - not exactly exculpatory, of course, but I believe it's this type of assessment that led to Coren later describing his actions as "paranoid." Anyways, I'm fine with steering clear of you if you'd like, though I hope you don't mind if I reserve the right to drop you any run-of-the-mill messages like the one that started this thread. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that link; it's all I was looking for. If Coren ran checkuser and found nada then I'm happy with the results. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

List of best-selling albums

Thanks for everything (y por haberme leído pacientemente en español también :),  good work: [1], [2] or [3]; This was indeed a "Wiki hoax", definitely. But, RadioIzzy performs persistent vandalism [4]. Can you handle it?. And... sorry for my bad English. Best regards Chrishonduras (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am watching the page and I will work against edit warriors. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Mixed metaphor of the day ;-)

Unless you can think of something you'd tie a wagon to that throws fish...[5] :P AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That's my story and I'm stick-in-the-mud, because a stitch in time saves them like nine-pins. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Tube Fender

Thank you for your post regarding the article Tube Fender but I just wanted to clarify with you that Tube Fender is not a product name, but a very large category of products in the Off Road Industry that includes Jeep Owners, Toyota Owners, Custom Built Buggies and other off road vehicles. Google Search for Tube Fender. Matsonian (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Please place your comments at the deletion discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tube fender. I will respond there. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Shakira

Hola, Binksternet. No me quiero meter a problemas, simplemente trato de guardar la imparcialidad. Pero, ¿será correcto esto que realizé?: [6] y [7]. Me gusta Shakira y conozco su biografía casi a la perfección, tanto en las versiones de Wikipedia como fuera de otros lugares y sé que esas ventas no son correctas; además, Sony dice que solo ha vendido 60 millones. Saludos, Chrishonduras (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Chrishonduras, I do not want to help fix the problem of inflated record sales at all of the musician and album articles where there is controversy. My only interest was at Madonna's Ray of Light album, but because of that I was pulled into the List of best-selling albums against my better judgement. I wish you success in your fight for accuracy. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

XP-39

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

FWiW FWiW (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC).

Marvelous. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon tomorrow (Saturday) in Oakland

Hi, I hope you will be joining us tomorrow afternoon at the Edit-a-thon at Tech Liminal, in Oakland. We'll be working on articles relating to women and democracy (and anything else that interests you). It's sponsored by the California League of Women Voters, Tech Liminal, and me.

If this is the first you are hearing of this event, my apologies for the last-minute notice! I announced it on the San Francisco email list and by a banner on your watchlist, but I neglected to look at the San Francisco invitation list until this evening. If you can't make it this time, I hope to see you at a similar event soon! -Pete (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had heard of the event. Sounds fun! As a freelancer, I work any day of the week that is asked of me. Tomorrow—Saturday—is one of those days. Best wishes to the participants! Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can relate. Hope to see you at another event soon, then! -Pete (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Nixon talk page notice

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Request comment II

Your input would be appreciated here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I will comment if and when I get a sense of why there is this kind of discussion on one editor's talk page rather than a noticeboard or larger arena, and how much leverage such a limited discussion will hold on what we do going forward. Binksternet (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm unsure why this thread isn't at the mediation page. Nonetheless, this may well be the last opportunity to speak about the "avoid-dance" during this mediaiton. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• FTR, Brad is going to judge the validity of the criticism of the caveat based on the support, or lack thereof, of an amendment to it based on comments at Strad's talk thread. It now appears to him that only I have an issue with the "avoid-dance", which of course isn't true. I realise most if not all of us are so tired out by this, but really, we are quite close to an end. At least please weigh-in with your thoughts so your voice is heard and Brad cannot insist that I am the only one with an issue with the caveat. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Bink would this link be good for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-leaflets/

The article didn't really mention about the warning shortly after the first A-bombing and that i thought it added great value to the article. BTW, this is PBS link so it's legit.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think this source can be used, along with the other sources which are mentioned at Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Edit Request Concerning Leaflets Dropped on Hiroshima. The date in that PBS source is vague, though. When addressing the leaflet question, all the reliable sources must be polled to get as broad an answer as possible, since they are somewhat contradictory. For instance, some revisionist American books (A Patriot's History of the United States, for instance) say that Hiroshima was warned about the atomic bomb by leaflets, but this is contradicted by more detailed/authoritative sources which say the leaflets dropped on Hiroshima before August 6 warned about the firebombing of Japan's cities. No mention was made in them of a new, more powerful bomb; and Hiroshima was not listed among the targeted cities. Binksternet (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Systematic POV edits have been reported to ANI

Schweikart ostracized

Here's what I wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: "Larry Schweikart a history professor with a non-controversial record as a business historian in recent years has written interpretive histories of the US with an explicitly conservative viewpoint. Today editor User:Binksternet has been systematically tracking and erasing citations to Schweikart's political books and to his nonpolitical books as well. He stated his motivation on my talkpage as "Certainly Schweikart has his fans, but I think we need to minimize his impact on Wikipedia, at least on topics where his opinion goes against the tide." Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rjensen). For example he deleted a passage on guitar music Rock and roll and the fall of communism that cited Schweikart. He deleted material from Conservation in the United States explaining "Delete overreliance on poorly received work" with zero evidence anywhere that the particular Schweikart works involved were "poorly received" by any RS. Perhaps "against the tide" seems to mean against Binksternet's pov. Ostracizing an established historian because of his political views is pure POV, in my opinions. The NPOV rules require the inclusion of all major viewpoints. "against the tide" seems to mean against Binksternet's pov." Rjensen (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Shouldn't the proper forum be WP:RSN to determine whether this or that Schweikart work is worthy of the facts that it is being used for? Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

the issue is personal attacks on a scholar for books you never read in violation of POV rules. Rjensen (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks? You have the wrong guy. Have I questioned the man's scholarship? Yes, of course, along with many others. I read his book and was astounded at the wrong 'facts' therein. For instance, Schweikart and Allen tell the reader that the city of Hiroshima was warned ahead of time by leaflets that the US was going to "obliterate" the city, but the leaflets that were actually dropped did not list Hiroshima among the target cities nor did they warn of anything greater than the usual firebombings that had been going on for five months. Schweikart and Allen mislead the reader into thinking the Americans gave the Hiroshima citizens fair warning for the atomic bomb, which is not the case. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Schweikart has written dozens of books and scholarly articles published by leading journals -- and has been asked by the editors of other leading journals (American Historical review, J. Southern History, Western Historical Q, etc) to write for them. That establishes a significant reputation as a RS. Binksternet thinks all that is ruined if Schweikart makes a mistake in a general survey book, about say the Japanese language text of a leaflet. Binksternet erases material that has not been challenged by anyone and which he has not read (eg rock music and Panic of 1857 and the diary of Robert Peary (the arctic explorer). What we have is a systematic purge of material that has not been challenged, with no discussion on talk pages and no evidence from Binksternet that there is a problem. That I suggest is a serious editing issue. Rjensen (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm right here; you don't have to address me in the third person as if I was somewhere else, or as if you were grandstanding.

You dismiss one Schweikart work (his most famous one, the bestseller) as a "general survey book", then you turn around and defend the nonsense Schweikart wrote in Seven Events That Made America America, a load of popular pap contained in a chapter called "A Steel Guitar Rocks the Iron Curtain" in which he says that the musical "solo, that essential ingredient of freedom and self-expression", helped break the Iron Curtain. I don't get it! How can you support tripe like that? It's unscholarly pop conjecture churned out for the masses, to turn a buck.

Next, there's the 1986 Schweikart piece called "Polar Revisionism and the Peary Claim" in which he argues that there is no evidence of tampering with Peary's diary, there is a similarity in pemmican crumbs and fat smears among the pages in the diary including the crucial ones that were inserted to fill in the blank days when Peary was supposedly at the North Pole. Schweikart concludes that Peary did get to the North Pole ahead of Cook. And yet, the mainstream consensus did not change because of Schweikart: for instance, in 2003, the textbook Exploring Polar Frontiers: A Historical Encyclopedia continued with the mainstream position that Peary "claimed" to have reached the North Pole, but probably not. This encyclopedia lists a few historians who have argued one way or the other; that Peary was or was not capable of adequate navigation (page 516), and that the icy surfaces he traveled may or may not have allowed adequate traveling speed (a speed that would have been higher than any other explorers), but the encyclopedia does not mention Schweikart's paper. It does say that Peary did not keep an unbroken account in his diary, and that the loose paper announcing his reaching the North Pole "could have been written at any time." This directly contradicts the Schweikart position which is why I took it out of the Peary biography as revisionism. I can imagine putting it back in but with much more context about how the viewpoint of Schweikart is a minor one, how the paper was not a turning point in Peary historiography. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

3RRon WoW

Just a friendly reminder. And not that I disagree with the reverts, but labeling those edits as vandalism is questionable.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I hear you. At the article, when I saw "Planned Baby Slaughter" the die was cast. From that point on, the editor was a vandal in my eyes. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." As "good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia", none of my edits are vandalism according to Wikipedia.

The latest edit was not vandalism. It was a "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia"

The latest edit was not original research. Is Bill of Rights not a reliable source?

The latest edit was not synthesis. Synthesis requires multiple sources.

Nice try.