User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

MRM

Hi Binksternet, long time no see. I wrote something here and I hope that you'll reply. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I will comment when I get the chance. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

KAL 747 photo

I thought the WP:OP debate held that CGI photos of aircraft disasters not created by the Government could not be used and I recall a ton of CGI photos were removed for that reasons. Is there something I'm missing?

Besides, don't you think perhaps it would be a lot better to use a real photo of a KAL 747 rather than a CGI one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjnboy (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Please link to the debate you describe.

I prefer the artist's rendering because it shows the aircraft as it would have appeared just before the tragedy. It includes the "I [heart] NY" phrase which has been noted. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I recall first seeing this debate on the Pan Am Flight 103 talk page. But saw it on other pages which had CGI photos of airplanes. The reason why CGI photos are not allowed have to do with them being considered "Original Research". All I know is that the end result was the vast majority of plane crash pages having CGI images not made by the NTSB or Government removed. That is until I hunted for free or licensed photos to replace them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pan_Am_Flight_103/Archive_8#Fantasy_infobox_image_-_remove.21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjnboy (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The artist's representation is only a jet airliner flying quietly at night, straight and level. There is nothing remotely challenging about this image; it does not violate WP:NOR by having, say, rockets heading toward it from some direction, or showing it severely damaged and falling. It is not a "fantasy" image. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well what if I were to get permission to use a real photograph of the plane involved in the incident? I was able to get permission for use of a photo of the plane that became United Airlines Flight 173. I have no intention of butting heads and think that perhaps a photo of the real deal would be an amicable solution for everyone and would also give the article a greater degree of seriousness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjnboy (talk • contribs) 01:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In that case both images could be used in the article. I still like the night flight image at the top. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

How about we put the CGI image in either the "Flight deviation from assigned route" or "Shootdown" section and have the caption say "Artist's rendition of HL7442 as it would have looked just prior to the shootdown"?

Like the Japan Air Lines Flight 123 page, which has a real photo of the plane in the infobox and a CGI rendering of the earlier tailstrike incident down below. All the other plane crash pages that I've read have it like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123

But then again, this is all dependent on if the man gives me permission to use the real photo. I've already messaged hime and am awaiting his reply. If he does grant permission, how about we give my suggestion a try and if it doesn't look good, we'll do your suggestion? Bjnboy (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Such a decision should be taken to the article's talk page. Without having seen the real photograph, I still like the idea of having the artist's version at the top of the article. What you want is more people looking at this question. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Removals

Hi Bink, why did you remove several posts in this edit? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The posts appeared to be disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be best in the future if you ask an uninvolved admin to handle talk page removals. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Bink, your mass deletion of talk page comments is unacceptable and a flagrant violation of policy. Per WP:Talk, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." You made no argument for an exception (and no such exception existed).

Your brazen violations of policy are particularly inadvisable in view of the sanctions. Steeletrap (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Mark. It's good to know there are eyes on the case. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Binksternet, just a small note. I have been asking Specifico and Steeletrap to start treating you with more respect, and I hope you will temper your approach as well. Also, I don't think the "Binkie" thing that happened here a few minutes ago was necessarily trolling, but most likely a good nature spinoff from a playful thread on Steeletrap's talk page. That's all, ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the initiative; I hope it bears fruit. I still feel that the "playful" behavior was disrespectful trolling. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that I respond to Bink, Binkster or Binksternet and no other permutations of my username. Binksternet (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, Bink. However, if you're up for it, provide a diff where you made this clarification. I honestly have no recollection of it at all. Steeletrap (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Steeletrap! Here's one example from Bink's Talk Page Archives but I know I've seen her/him mention it elsewhere. I'm only recently active but I remember reading about their nickname preference. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"Impinge" vs "impugn"

Holy frickin' hell, THANK YOU. My interior English teacher (and I actually WAS one, so the interior one is REALLY intrusive sometimes) was going to explode my head if someone hadn't corrected the error. GJC 22:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hahaha! Air kiss >mwah< ... ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Electricladymural.jpg

Hello, Binksternet! I usually don't check my Commons page much, but I was alarmed to see this image deleted. I was there, in the legendary studio, and I figured that my image would be included under "freedom of panorama" like a tourist taking a picture of the Empire State Building. After some research, I realized that you were quite correct in deleting my image. Lance Jost's work is copyrighted, and my image did not properly attribute his copyright. Thanks for correcting me on that. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The first time one of my photos was deleted for this reason I was hopping mad. :-)

I am not a fan of the USA's law describing no freedom of panorama for murals—it's quite restrictive. The UK allows photographs of outdoor/public art if the art is not temporary, which I think is fair, but the USA does not. In either country, an indoor mural is not free to photograph. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is Deepak Chopra. Thank you. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 19:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again

Additional thanks for your continued diligence in tracing the sockpuppets of that most disruptive editor. Great work. Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. :-)

Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Larry Sanger

Could you have a look here? Thanks. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Livingtime

Thanks for the message 'Binksternet'. My name is Alderson Smith and I created the username 'Livingtime' several years ago when I was still an editor at Living Time Media Int'l. No one objected to my using that name, but the username represents me and not a business. I have requested to change my username to 'Aldersonsmith' to clarify the fact that I am an individual user and not representing a group or company in any way. Where I have linked to publications by LTMI this has been because they are the only currently available versions of books that had been unpublished for anywhere from fifty to one hundred years, books that I am indeed aware of because of my editing work. If this is an issue then I will ensure that no links are made to volumes on LTMI. I make links to books from other publishing companies and sources, whichever are the most readily available editions of the sources that people will be able to refer to. Thanks for your helpful message and I will watch out for future posts.Livingtime (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the fact that the books are otherwise unavailable except in various libraries. However, some of the books are effectively free of charge because they have been digitized, for instance All Things Are Possible (1905) by Shestov. If there is a free version of a source then Wikipedia would typically link to that rather than to a retail site. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy posting Binksternet. I will link to free sources whenever I am aware of them. In all the cases that I have linked to the Living Time Media Int'l it is because that site is not a current retail site but a still-existing site with much more additional information to offer on the topics I have written on. The site is not financially functional as you will find if you try to purchase anything from there. For my own part, though, I do want to do my own service of contributing knowledge to Wikipedia from various, sometimes obscure, areas that I see do need additional or more accurate coverage. I will do my best to ensure that I am as unbiased as possible in referring to different possible sources and I am trying to give more and more references with each edit that I make. It takes a while to get used to Wikipedia though I am going to persevere. All of your positive advice is greatly appreciated.Livingtime (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic! I wish you the best of luck as you move forward in your Wikipedia improvement effort. Ping me if you have any questions. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Binksternet! I'll ping you soon as I do have a no. of queries. I'll go through more of the general Wikipedia documentation before taking up more of your time...Livingtime (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Flow Newsletter - November 14

Hi. This is a brief note to let you know about an update to the Main FAQ (the addition of a large table of Components of the discussion system), and also to specifically request your feedback on two items: our sandbox release plan, and a draft of the new contributors survey. We look forward to reading your input on these or other topics - Flow can only get better with your ideas! –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

conation article

I see you got rid of something in the conation article to prevent COI/promotion of the Kolbe Corp stuff -- I thought you should see this link, from which a lot of the article appears to be copied, even if not in an overtly promotional manner: http://www.kolbe.com/downloads/research-and-validity/wisdom-of-the-ages/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.46.71 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. You are absolutely correct! I have removed the copyright violation material, greatly diminishing the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

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) 05:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverting edit!

Hello, why did you revert my edit on Harry S. Truman article ? was the image non free ?

The image was not a good one—the quality was poor and the subject was somewhat lost. There are enough images in the article. We don't need another one. Binksternet (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Grey School of Wizardry

Dear Binksternet, Hope you are doing well. I recently rewrote the article on the Grey School of Wizardry and I was hoping, if you get a chance, that you'd look it over and perhaps tighten it up bit. Also, if possible, I was wondering if you could look over the deleted article Philip H. Farber; I really think it's been deleted for personal-agenda reasons. However, I'll AGF and ask if you might have the time to improve it, and maybe it will survive next time. Thanks. Rosencomet (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice new article! I think Oberon's name should be in the lead section, not just down in the article body after everybody else's name.

Regarding Farber, I have a lot on my plate right now. If I get a chance I will look into his biography. I am not an administrator so I have no ability to read a deleted article. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Zack Norman again

Hi Binksternet! Have you had a chance to run through the Zack Norman article and bring it into the mainspace yet? Thanks so much, User:Matzohboy 20:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not yet... I have been working on other things. The biography is the queue, though. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Shorter books.google links

Mea culpa on not noticing next quote where Hoppe makes free speech point. (And for not remembering your point in the talk page discussion about that use vs. the other one. Reviewing it now.)

Anyway, it's the first time I saw a short books.google URL with a page number like that. I assume you find the page you want through a regular search and then -- do what?? I'll be happy to over time clean up a lot of those long links I've put in various articles. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc talk 15:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

When faced with a long Google books URL, I trim away everything after the first page number, which usually looks like pg=PA169 or something like that. In the Hoppe article the link went from this to that:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=qARC56X5vxcC&pg=PA206&dq=perversity+or+abnormality+Hoppe+Democracy:+The+God+That+Failed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IXKKUtfPIKagsASf24GIDg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=perversity%20or%20abnormality%20Hoppe%20Democracy%3A%20The%20God%20That%20Failed&f=false

• http://books.google.com/books?id=qARC56X5vxcC&pg=PA206

Of course I try out the newly trimmed URL to see if it still works. If the book has a foreword with little Roman numeral page numbers, or if the page is in an appendix, then trimming the Google URL might be a bit trickier. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it works. I love tidyness. User:Carolmooredc talk 02:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edit waring

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Gwillhickers 18:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

sourcing

Hi Binkster... just want to say that I have tried really hard in all my GMO editing to use really neutral sources - I reach for the things like the NYT as often as I can. I specifically try to avoid "monsanto-friendly" or anti-GMO activist sources, because I want content I write to be acceptable to anybody no matter where they stand on issues - I want to write the best, NPOV content I can, sourced with as high-quality sources as I can. I look for a long, long time for good sources. Just wanted to say that. Sorry for the intrusion. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've seen evidence to the contrary, especially with regard to the CVS source used over CNN and Al Jazeera, when referencing the turnout numbers for March Against Monsanto. This single source from a small media outlet you used to claim the turnout was as low as 200,000 when all others reporting on the march used "2 million". You later admitted the author of the piece did not know what s/he was talking about, and that the number was never meant to be an estimate, though you used it as one (and it remains to this day at multiple Monsanto-related pages).petrarchan47tc 20:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Dead horse. And I don't agree with anything you wrote above. Most importantly, dead horse.Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You are making untrue statements here. There is nothing dead about an edit history, which is exactly what you're referencing. All major media said the protest was attended by 2 million people, but you choose to quote an outlier, a number 1/5 the size of all other media, one that was never said to be an "estimate", sourced to an article you later wouldn't stand behind. It is also not a dead issue until the 3 or more articles with this low-ball number, based on gross misuse of sources, is remedied by using RS appropriately. Again, when it comes to making Monsanto look good, there is a pattern. Nothing dead about that, unfortunately. It is concerning, and well worth looking into, since you are the primary contributor to all Monsanto related articles, with 4X the contribs of any other editor at Monsanto.petrarchan47tc 20:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

RSN discussion layout

I know you don't like the involved/uninvolved layout we are seeing on the RSN. I've started a discussion re same here: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. – – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Duke of New York vs. just York

Hi, regarding the undo of my edit - I'm just going by the dialog in the movie, so unless it's different in the book (which I have but haven't read it in 30+ years), Alex's own words, "Down in the Duke of NEW York...". Just saw it less than a week ago. - No acct. 13:36, 21 November 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.177.82 (talk)

 Done. Just now I looked up a couple of books on the film and you are right. The bar/pub is named the Duke of New York. Thanks for your tenacity in bringing this problem to me personally. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Again

.... I think. See this. Almost a copy of this. Thought you liked to know. - DVdm (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Looks like Acalamari already blocked that one indefinitely. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Videos

Hi Binkster,

Did you happen to notice the RfC at the Edward Snowden page? We've got three short clips in the "Temporary Russian asylum" section that really need to be looped together and be displayed as a single video. I was thinking to ask at the Village Pump about this, but wonder if you might know what I'm asking here, and if it can be done. petrarchan47tc 20:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a video guy. Because of my familiarity with the things that are done by my colleagues who are video people, I'm absolutely sure there are multiple ways to open all three of them up in a video editing program and join them together, saving the result as one long video. I would even call it trivial, except that I have never done such a thing myself. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Binkster - it does sound like Village Pump might be the place, then (?). petrarchan47tc 21:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, try Village Pump, or the video games wikiproject. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty, danke. petrarchan47tc 22:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard

Hello Binksternet. While in many circumstances, it might not be contentious or aggressive to make a change without waiting for either close or explicit consensus on an RSN thread, I hope that you will agree with me that we should all err on the side of moderation and minding our p's and q's on these AS articles. Under the circumstances, I suggest we all keep our hands on the table so to speak and not do anything which might even have the appearance or suggestion of aggressive editing. Please consider. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw your revert of Carolmooredc's work as exactly that which you ask me to refrain from: aggressive editing. You were perfectly free to wait until some kind of formal closure at RSN and then rework the material if needed. However, you aggressively reverted her.

The RSN discussion is a discussion, not a legal procedure. Once discussion slows or halts, a sense of opinion can be determined. This simple procedure is obviously what informed Carolmoooredc's changes. It is also what informed my restoration of her work after your revert. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tim Weed

Gatoclass (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

First/Last warning disruptive editing of Nikkormat, and NO original research onHome roasting Coffee

Administrator Binksternet: You have made some disturbing edits and warnings on my talk page that perhaps require a bit more info from you. 1.) Home roasting coffee// You state no insertion of unpublished info or personal analysis when I explained how a toaster oven can be used to roast green beans. Please note that I assume therefore that I can slash out anything on the "Home roasting coffee" page that is not referenced from a published source? As I have been roasting coffee in various toaster ovens for over 30 years I find it quite offensive that you chose my unsourced "opinion" to rip out of the article, yet half the article is unreferenced unpublished personal analysis. 2.) Disruptive editing on Nikkormat page. I added in a very confused intro that is factually misleading that "The Nikkormat is, for all intents and purposes, a Nikon. Funny how on the back of all Nikkormats it clearly says "NIKON" and the instruction manual that came with my FT3 is published by "Nikon" Nippon Kogaku K.K. Nikon publication (FT3 instruction manual) (77.3.CO) Would the fact Nippon Kogaku K.K. was "Nikon" before it became Nikon Corp in 1988 be of any interest to anyone? Would the fact the Nikkormat camera body is stamped "NIKON" be of any interest to anyone? Would the publication # of the instruction manual for a camera only made one year in the '70's published by Nikon be of any interest to anyone? I ask these things because I will add them and use them as reference if you do not object? Yes or no? 3.)I will stop here, so you only have a few things to reply to. Please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raisinpie (talk • contribs) 06:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, kibitzer here. I happen to know a bit about Nikomats/Nikkormats. Now, the disputed text seems to have been: The Nikkormat is, for all intents and purposes, a Nikon. This does not seem to mean "The Nikkormat is a Nikon". What it does mean is unclear, which is already sufficient reason to delete the addition. (Off the top of my head: Nikons had exchangable finders; Nikkormats did not. This did not necessarily make Nikkormats inferior.) What you write above may well be intended to elucidate, but it (e.g. the claim that something is "published by 'Nikon' Nippon Kogaku K.K.") actually confuses further, and rhetorical questions about whether this or that observation would "be of any interest to anyone" also don't help. ¶ Please note that all experienced editors of Wikipedia realize very well that Wikipedia articles are already riddled with dubious material. However, the plethora of dubious material does not justify further additions to it. Dubious material should be improved or cut; what's added should be good. -- Hoary (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Raisinpie, you admit that your addition is your own analysis, thus it is clearly original research and was properly removed. If you start removing material just to prove a point you might end up blocked. On the other hand, the article needs more citations (we have a template to ask for them, {{cn}} and adding those judicially is fine (but judicially as I say, that means only for contentious material usually). Hoary is absolutely right. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller and Hoary. Don't put words in my mouth, please. Nippon Kogaku KK may have changed its name to Nikon Corp in 1988 as the Nikkormat article states, but it neglects to say Nippon Kogaku KK was "Nikon" prior. And no not all Nikons have interchanable lensfinders. I used Nikon almost exclusively in my surgical practice for 30 years and cannot recall any interchangable lensfinders. New users to Wikipedia should not have to be put up against tacticians like Binksternet threatening to block me for a few dubious edits out of many. What is with the nasty here on WP?Raisinpie (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller- I do appreciate the shortcuts, I think you call them-editing shortcuts like

you gave, etc. I would be tempted to use some of these on an article I find without any references, or biased opinions, etc. I am always hesitant and so far have never deleted something someone else has added. I'm sure I would be thrown to the wolves if I did that. I wonder why Binksternet did not use something like that {{cite)) rather than just delete and go from zero to final warning in 4 minutes--literally. Seems to be quite a double standard between administrators and editors--and I mean that in a constructive way as everything I write here. Along those lines, should not things be allowed to be added (temporalily) when someone runs across something they know to be a fact but do not have a reference at hand? Or someone else can add a reference--rather than just delete everything and say it was poorly written or the like? Raisinpie (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Raisinpie, I gave you four warnings right in a row because the first edit of yours that I ran across was so problematic that I went to your list of contributions to see what other things you have been doing. That list told me you were repeatedly violating WP:No original research which is not a suggestion but an inarguable policy. I did not care how many others might have violated that policy in the past when I visited your various contributions and saw that you needed to be warned to stop violating it yourself. Before I came along some of your edits had been reverted by Diannaa, Nigel Ish and by Denniss—all respected and experienced editors. I'm not an administrator but Diannaa is..

Please read the WP:NOR policy and understand that Wikipedia is not the place for your opinion, expert or not, if it has not been published. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet--Yes, Diannaa and Nigel Ish did make some useful comments, for which I thanked them and then went on to create better edits they had no problem with. Your four wrnings all came within four minutes. And you made no useful suggestions, you just deleted and made some snide comments, with the "threat" of a blockade immediately if you didn't like anything else I did. Tell me, if you are not an administrator, how can you block me? Do you often misrepresent yourself? I knew you would not give answer 2 my 2 simple question points, btw. Had you made a constructive comment I still would have returned to the Bf 109 article and produced a better edit--as I did, for instance. No need for unconstructive jabs. My interpretation of the "Fighter Aces" author was correct, by the way, but with messy wording and syntax. In my profession it is customary to get messy in paraphrasing others' work, along with cite/refs, etc. so as not to be involved in solicitor disputes. If you don't understand what I am getting at I will leave it at saying some people do not like their work quoted for more than a few words, and messy is one way around it that. By the way, the Nikkormat article needs a major overhaul. Nikkormat is not a brand. It is a Nikon camera, just as is Nikkorex and Nikonos. All Nikon "models." Nippon Kogaku KK (Nikon Corporation) was established in 1917, and the first production camera was offered in 1948. And Binksternet, I went to the bottom of your userpage by mistake last night looking for a reply down here on the talk page, and noticed you roast your own beans. I have been roasting beans for over thirty years. My first "roaster" was a toaster oven my grandmother gave me when she realized it was useless for most things. The section where I added to the home roasting coffee page was full of uncited references so I felt free to add mine. So I felt especially offended when you slashed it out among all the other uncited sales pitches for expensive equipment in that section. I roast high quality beans to the exact degree of darkness I desire in a $40 toaster oven. The results are exceptional, but of course there is more to it than a preheated 400 degree toaster oven with beans in a single layer and stirring w/ a wood spoon and 10 minutes time. My unmentioned cooling methods are quite rapid while being extremely simple. Shame on you for denying the world the fact excellent coffee can be roasted in a toaster oven. Do I still have just one more mistake before you turn me into a pumpkin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raisinpie (talk • contribs) 06:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Your comments about how you roast coffee show that you have not yet taken the WP:No original research policy to heart. This must be done if you would like to continue editing Wikipedia. Your personal experiences are not suitable for the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thx for suggestions on improvements on Impalement!

I've sort of hoped that an experienced editor like you would strongly suggest that the next level of improvement would be a major size reduction of the article. For myself, it is easiest to make the article comprehensive and fully referenced at first, and THEN, when it has "matured" a bit, and I've gained a critical distance to the article, to hack away material. On the invisible pre-article stage, there were lots of references/cases that I chose NOT to include, now it is the time to retain only the "truly essential" stuff, while keeping the article sufficiently broad in coverage and referenced. I am by no means finished by the massacre of inessentials (I've just started, really), and I hope that from time to time, you might take a peek and see how it is gradually improved. Many thanks, Arildnordby (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you help me with a revision tag on Impalement?

Hi there! I know that it exists some tag that says "This article is under major revision. Please do not add material during the process", or something like that. But, I don't know the code to get that revision tag, so if you know it, I'd be immensely grateful if you add it on top of the article.Arildnordby (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The two relevant templates are Template:In use and Template:Under construction. The first one is for active editing. The second one is for when you take a longer break away from the keyboard but are still in the process. You can alternate the two as you progress. The template of your choice goes at the very top of the page. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!Arildnordby (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Hi, if you haven't already, please take note of the details of Template:Austrian economics enforcement. This is a general reminder, and not given in response to misconduct. I've decided to err on the side of caution to try to make sure that people involved in this topic area are aware of the discretionary sanctions. Consider this a "no-fault" notification. If you're already aware (which you probably are), feel free to remove this message. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)