User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

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[1], or this image.[2] 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.[3] A bit more than an hour later, Dubmill changed it to capital "T",[4] 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,[5] 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,[6], 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...",[7] 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,[8] 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[9][10][11] 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 [12] compared to Wikipedia article [13], with file history [14] 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 [15] here... who also moved over photos from Wikipedia [16], [17], and [18] 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

[19], 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)

DYK nomination of Saguache Crescent

Hello! Your submission of Saguache Crescent at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop removing content from Joey Sturgis

There is no official credible source for album credits. Taking images or scans from cd liner notes is illegal. There is no national database because distributors are private companies that aren't required to disclose album details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.24.75 (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If there is no published source to back up the fact then the fact does not belong in the biography. See WP:No original research. Wikipedia says it is not enough that your text is true or correct, it must also be previously published.

You can WP:Cite album liner notes even if you don't scan them. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You must have missed the fact that the first reference is a link to all the credits -> http://www.allmusic.com/artist/joey-sturgis-mn0000938432 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.24.75 (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a great source. Thanks for the link. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive

The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ramped up

Binksternet, the activity at Snowden has ramped up to the point that I think some action is needed. It is a battlefield where even the simplest work is being disrupted. The long standing Lede is being used to retell the story, and a team has formed. No amount of sense from other editors seems to bring about more sensible editing behaviour nor good communication on the talk page. The talk page is all we've got, if that doesn't work, is there some sort of RfC, or...? Thanks again, petrarchan47tc 23:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I will look at what's going on. I've been preoccupied with another biography. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

But you have enough time to keep templating my user Talk page with "an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period... Please consider using the article's talk page..."? Let's leave aside the fact I am obviously aware of this advice such that the only remaining explanation is that you are trolling me. Let's also leave aside the fact that you templated me the minute JohnValeron removed what I added and then Petrarchan stepped in to restore exactly what I added down to the last punctuation point (how does it help Petrarchan if when I add material she wants you template ME instead of the guy she's warring with?) For a user to have performed four reverts within 24 hours, he or she would have had to have edited FOUR times, no? I've edited TWICE in 24 hours (note that policy counts "...edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user..." as a single edit for counting purposes). And in these two edits, there is nothing at all in common between these two edits, either in terms of including something or excluding something. In other words, in no sense have I returned even just twice to some preferred version. If you are going to say that I edited twice to move the article to my preferred version, well of course every edit is a move towards a preferred version in the eyes of the editor. It makes no sense to call this ordinary editing edit warring, however.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The template I put on your page required almost no time on my part. I put it there after seeing that you had reverted several times in the last 24 hours at the Snowden article. The template is a reminder for you to keep from breaking the 3RR brightline rule, as you recently learned from your first block. If you have a problem with any future appearance of that template of that sort you can remove it. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Creating an opportunity to wag your finger and toot your horn like this about getting me blocked was, of course, the whole rationale behind your successful effort to get me blocked by gaming the system. When I pointed out on the policy Talk page that its wording allowed this gaming of yours, you had nothing to say in defence of your behaviour and neither did the blocking admin. As for this instance, I edited TWICE, not "several times," the second time to add material I had never added before to my recollection, and you didn't template me "after seeing" this, you templated me after JohnValeron reverted my addition! What is "required almost no time on my part" supposed to mean? That you simply don't care if your templating of other users is devoid of justification? You can only hit user pages on a drive-by basis because you are too busy to slow down? May I suggest that you start to care? As for "reminding" me, I should think the fact I felt compelled to remove this exact same Template from my Talk page in the recent past is obvious evidence that these "reminders" of yours are unwelcome. Since you refuse to look at that obvious evidence, apparently I must spell it out for you here: these "reminders" of yours are unwelcome and you are hereby instructed to keep them off my Talk page. Any questions? You continue to remain welcome to actually discuss any good faith concerns of yours on my Talk page (ie no drive-by templating).--Brian Dell (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of social sites in Political parties articles

Hi Binksternet, thanks for the reply in talk page. But still i have a query, if adding social sites in indian political parties is not a concern in wikipedia then in the edit section of External_links a message is displayed "ATTENTION! Please do not add links without discussion and consensus on the talk page. Undiscussed links will be removed" but no such restriction in the edit section of INC can you please throw some light on it? Although this may seem a trivial thing, but i think it will be useful in protecting from vandalism of indian political parties and politicians articles. Work2win (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I will add that message to the INC article, though you could have added it yourself. Be WP:Bold. Binksternet (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, thanks for the reply.

I didn't know that i as a autoconfirmed user could add a message there. Even then i believe in consensus in editing articles. Work2win (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing to have a critical view on Impalement once I have achieved a major size reduction of it?

Hi, Binksternet! First off, thanks for your previous comments on egregious length of article (those comments have lingered in my mind..). Secondly, the way I personally work is that I need to have the "full overview" of a topic before I can crystallize the topic into those elements I regard as truly essential/representative. That means loads of work that afterwards is deleted (although I do not think that, then, has been a waste). I need time to mull over the full topic, until my brain gradually sorts out the principal sub-topics that I can justify to myself to represent the whole.

I believe that I have reached that matured overview now, and have a plan to make a 60-70% reduction of the article, bringing it down, I guess, into the 80-90k range. But, before beginning that trimming process, it would be nice to know if another editor might, after the reduction, take a look at it. Furthermore, should I delist the article from "Good Article" once I've done so, and instead renominate it? (It's not terribly important to me to get that badge, but it is important to me that a badge awarded on different premises is not transferred to a substantially changed article!! The latter would be a sort of dishonesty, I think..)

Now, whether or not you are willing to look over it, I'll give a brief sketch here of what I am going to retain:

On methods, I will include one vivid description of longitudinal impalement, and one description of transversal impalement. I will also retain a discussion of survival time for longitudinal impalement. That should suffice for the general reader!

On historical topics, I will retain the following:

• Ancient Middle East (because that is where it developed, will probably cut out Egypt, Persia and Rome as marginal, relative to notable Babylonia, (Neo-)Assyrians and Biblical evidence). Reason for retaining? That's where it all "began" (Babylonia for earliest, Neo-Assyrians for fiercest, Biblical for independently extremely notable culturally)!
• Due to his notoriousness, Vlad Tepes (Dracula) has to be retained.
• Foci on just two medieval/early modern societies practicing impalement, Holy Roman Empire (Germany) and Ottoman Empire. This fits nicely with the distinction between transversal/longitudinal impalement as well, with predominantly transversal in HRE and predominantly longitudinal in OE.

And that's basically what I wish to retain.

The subtopic of gaunching, i.e, throwing people onto hooks in some way, is more profitably split out as an independent article, which can be be briefly mentioned in Impalement, with link to main article on "gaunching", in the manner already done with bamboo torture.

Lastly, would it break Wikipedia norms to include in "See also" a link to an earlier, more comprehensive version of the same article, only to be accessed for readers truly "obsessed" with the topic???

Ok, it would be nice to hear if you think that such a major size reduction is ideally needed, and furthermore, if my proposed sketch initially strikes you as a good plan! Cheers, Arildnordby (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I have begun size reduction; if you disagree with the necessity of doing so, please say so. :-)Arildnordby (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Even your note here is too long! You could have just signed your name under the header. ;^)

Ping me again when you think you are ready for a review. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll do that!Arildnordby (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your fix on the Ronan page.

I was going to revert your change because of the lack of talk page discussion until I saw you were obviously a neutral and experienced editor. I have no disagreement with the edit, and suspect that it is better simply because someone like you made it. There was an accusation of synthesis on my original content, which is not true. [20] search for the text "Mia Farrow's son called the 'Blue Jasmine' director a child molester in blistering tweet". I shortened this to four words to make it more encyclopedic. I do believe my changes were accurate and relevant. I am not qualified to know what the right balance within WP on bold language is, and would love your casual insights. Woody Allen is accused by Ronan of Sexual molestation per a reliable second source, and this is a key part of Ronan's biography. Worth four words or a sentence.

Thanks for your involvement on this issue.

Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the goodwin (talk • contribs) 22:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. I think discussion of this sort is best conducted on the article talk page, or on noticeboards, but not on individual talk pages. I took part in the WP:BLPN discussion about this issue. There is still the matter of context: should the reader be told that Farrow's accusation has not resulted in any legal or civil suit? Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

agreed. I came here to thank you and ask for perspective which you gave. I have been directed against using talk pages for anything except discussing content changes, and I am satisfied with the content discussions. Bob the goodwin (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan redux

Frankly Bink I see this comment as both sexist and disruptive. Sexist because Petrarchan has been around the horn long enough to take care of herself. Disruptive because you're blindly defending a serial disruptor. Your effort at chivalry gallantry is contrary to the aims of the project.

I request that we make a good-faith effort to resolve this dispute now. Is that something you're interested in? Please lay out all of the evidence of "harassment" and "hounding" you have against me in the forum of your choice, and the community can discuss it. If you refuse to do so then I can only assume you only want to cast WP:ASPERSIONS and perpetuate problems. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope that this doesn't happen. You are both good editors as is Petrarchan. Bink should not be fighting her battles. DrF is correct, it is sexist and reinforces the belief that women are not able to stand up for themselves and need a protector to speak for them. What I would like to see is to have DrF and Petrar come here and discuss. Gandydancer (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gandy. I would love that. Seriously. Get it all out in the open in the hopes of moving on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify: When I say "the forum of [Bink's] choice," that could include my user talk, Bink's user talk, someone else's user talk (with their permission of course), or even a user sub-page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

DrF, you do not know what I know about Petra. In this case my sexism is not assumed, it is the result of observation and calculation. I don't intend to protect Petra from answering to whatever notional "serial disruption" she might have caused, but I do intend to try and keep her constructive edits, which I value.

As far as the time frame for my "laying out all of the evidence", I have many other concerns not the least of which is my real life job. As well, I have been overdosing on wikidrama lately. Whenever this happens, to keep myself from burning out I return to building relatively uncontroversial articles. Whenever it is that I choose to lay out all of the evidence it will require most of my time and attention for a whole day, probably two for responses. I don't know when such an opportunity will arise. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Three things:

• "DrF, you do not know what I know about Petra." Tell me what you know about her then, instead of keeping it a secret. It's intellectually dishonest to justify your actions by referring to information that you refuse to disclose. You might as well have written, "You're wrong but I can't tell you why." That's just what the federal government does, and it doesn't build trust.
• "Whenever it is that I choose to lay out all of the evidence it will require most of my time and attention for a whole day, probably two for responses. I don't know when such an opportunity will arise." So you will continue to cast aspersions while withholding the basis for doing so indefinitely, eh? Somewhere I saw a policy against that. In any case it's just not nice.
• "I don't intend to protect Petra from answering to whatever notional "serial disruption" she might have caused." Then join Gandy and ask her to answer to them. Actions speak louder than words. You are simply not acting as if you want to resolve this dispute.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I find your response hostile and intrusive. Please see my previous post. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? So it's "end of discussion"? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If you cut off this discussion then you're a numpty. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

So true! (if the truth be known, until this moment, DrF, I really did not like you one bit!) why are those words, "we can work it out, we can work it out" in my head over and over...what song is that? Gandydancer (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Bink, I really hope you're not WP:GAMING here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This saddens me. My gender has nothing to do with anything. Nor does Binksternet's. I did everything I could to try and continue editing at the Snowden page peacefully, and it only got worse and worse. Including the last day I edited there, trying to add the well documented "Snowden Effect" without Fleischman, who knows nothing of the subject and proved it by his complaints, kicking my shins the whole time. I have been calling out for help on that talk page, and Binksternet stepped in in the way that was needed. That talk page was, and is, taken over by hostile forces in my opinion, who aren't there to build an article, at least no evidence would support that idea, but are there to bother editors who are, and perhaps stop that process. I know that Fleischman did the same at Sam Adams Award, The Day We Fight Back, just like Bdell555 did at Russ Tice. For the most part, these are articles where I was the sole editor and forced to then deal with them. They seemed happy to toy with me endlessly, daily. Their edit histories show that indeed their days were dedicated to articles I worked on since early January. From my POV, this was beyond exhausting. When I called out for help with Bdell555, it was after a week dealing with him at the Tice article. This was when Fleischman stepped in. At that point, the Snowden talk page was completely taken over, and Fleischman was joined by his ALEC buddy, Captioljsmo, then a new guy who now repeats and agrees with his every word at the Snowden page. This is a loosing battle, but with Binksternet on the scene it didn't seem completely desperate to me.

Binksternet was the first person to respond to my early calls for help at Wikipedia years ago, with regard to some spin-doctoring going on at the BP page. He was the only person, after 2 noticeboards about the BP situation, who came and helped and stuck around. (Gandydancer was a huge help too, though knew about it from the BP oil spill page, not the noticeboards). His contributions there were priceless.

People, whether male or female, have different personality types. Wikipedians in general are a little too politically correct and nice to successfully handle the situation we find ourselves in: a talk page and article has been highjacked by people who won't listen to reason, aren't moved by community consensus and who act like complete jerks. I think the two months of repeating myself to Bdell555 along with the help of other volunteers, which brought about no changes whatsoever, proves that. I don't see any hope for that page without Binksternet - or - a larger group of independent editors willing to stick around, do reverts, do research, check their watchlist - every day - at least, with the amount of activity there lately, that's what is required. But that is not happening.

I am stunned that the one person who seems willing and able to help is being bashed by all sides. He is now experiencing what I was when he came in and 'saved' me. He, without my asking, reverted incredibly hostile comments from one energetic editor who was dedicated to bothering me, and I am forever grateful. There were many comments I never saw because of him. It is a proven fact that online comments can affect a person, and they certainly do me. I have crossed over into territory here at Wikipedia that has ruined my taste for the place entirely. I know there are editors who not only don't care if I am hurt, but who would like to see that reality, based solely on the content of the articles i've been working on. I wish more people here would lend a hand to help fellow editors who are being bashed, whether they are asked to do it or not. And Binksternet was not. Frankly, from a personal standpoint, this was one of the most touching things that has happened to me in a long while - that someone would go to such lengths to help a stranger (and to help the Pedia) has left me speechless. I have a feeling the rest of the community does know what a gem Binksternet is.

It is sad that in one's normal editing experience here, one can come across people who intend only to protect a certain ideology or special interest, and finds little to no support for overturning this wave. People have stated unambiguously a disdain for whistleblowers, yet are allowed to continue editing pages of people who have been given the label. Wikipedia seems to operate with almost zero common sense. If our number one rule is NPOV, then those who've stated their bias should be barred from fucking with articles and editors working in that area. I bring this up and... *crickets*. Binksternet is the only one who seems to know how to respond to the BS at Wikipedia, and who has offered to help. He gets spit in the face. Nice. I have no hope for this place. petrarchan47tc 18:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

At least Bink and Gandy are civil most of the time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What you are doing is far from civil, whether you have a smile behind your words or a growl. petrarchan47tc 23:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Too wrongs don't make a right. Rise above, bodhisattva aspirant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Saguache Crescent

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your work on Jane Kim. Chisme (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome! I had been intending for some time to rework the biography. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just want things to be clear

In yet another ANI report this evening I was accused of calling you a numpty. I'd like to make it very clear to you and to everyone else that I did no such thing, and would be very unlikely ever to do so. Eric Corbett 23:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That's too bad, because the word is so delightfully quirky. I give you permission to call me numpty in the future if it strikes you as appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A quick look makes me realize the accusation was about targeting Bencherlite, not me. You still have my permission. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite sure you know that if I ever thought you were behaving like a numpty I'd tell you so. But these interminable ANI reports just merge into one for me, so apologies for confusing you with Bencherlite. Eric Corbett 00:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ronan Farrow

Just a head's up that Bob the goodwin has said something about you that appears to be false here, which I addressed in my follow-up comment here. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

Well, that's a 48 hour break but I suspect that over the weekend we'll be right back in the same spot and probably putting a similar post on the 3RR noticeboard. I hope I wrong, but from their attitude today ... Ravensfire (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Albright Article Revert Issue

In the Charlie Albright article, it seems that you are reverting every possible edit and addition that is made, upon looking at the history. I am a long-time follower of Charlie Albright and was physically at the concert that the review in the Cortez Journal.

You erased two edits/additions that I created with only the explanation that "prose not suitable for encyclopedia. Albright is not known for being a composer, though he certainly has composed."

It is very clear that the prose is indeed suitable for an encyclopedia, as it is consistent with other quotes from reviews/reception in many other articles. Furthermore, this addition is significant because it not only discusses Albright's technical and emotional ability at the piano, but that he "transcends" that and is on a different level...as well as discusses his compositions being significant and important as well.

...Which leads to the issue of why you seem to revert anyone's addition of "composer" to his title. In your opinion, you claim that he is not known for being a composer, but searches on the internet show that he is just as avid a composer as pianist and is internationally known for such as well (just read the entire review in the Cortez Journal if you do not have the time.)

Please do not needlessly revert entire edits simply with non-descript explanations such as "prose not suitable" but it is consistent with similar articles across Wikipedia. The wording was not biased and was factual from primary sources (newspapers).

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwsmith3228 (talk • contribs)

Tell me one composition of Albright's that has gained recognition of its own. The answer: none. If Albright is hired as a composer, if he gets composer credits on a film, for instance, then he will be a composer on Wikipedia. Until then, he is known as a pianist.

I removed your text which I called "purple prose" because it was far too laudatory. Please see the guideline WP:PEACOCK which discusses proper wording. If you can reword the addition such that the praise is dialed way down, then you will have found the proper balance for an encyclopedia.

I reworked the whole biography last December because it had been developed by Jdanieloh who does nothing but write about Albright and upload photos of Albright, some of which have been deleted because of no permission. Jdanieloh had made the biography into a hagiography. I tried to make it more encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, user:binksternet, for your input. I suppose that using your reasoning, nobody on YouTube is a true "composer." If you go on iTunes, Amazon, CDBaby, or anywhere else online and see his CD "Vivace," you will see that he is a credited composer on that album. Furthermore, check his YouTube channel (http://youtube.com/pianomanca) and you will see that he has tens of thousands of views on many of his self-composed pieces. If that is not a "composer," I do not know what is.

I have trimmed my previous addition from the Cortez Journal as per your request and resubmitted it with the above information.

POV pushing

So, you don't see what I'm talking about at all? Dan56 edits jazz and R&B articles for GA and FA, but he only edits classic rock and metal articles to add negative critical commentary and genre war. He does not improve these articles beyond making sure that there is disparaging critical commentary included. What if I found a critic who hated hip-hop, then I went around to articles about hip-hop music and added negative commentary from said critic? What if I also kept all of those articles on my watchlist even though I was not editing or improving them just so that I could monitor if any of the negative stuff is removed, at which point I cry wolf and call whoever removed it a bully and accuse them of attempting to whitewash the material. For someone as skilled as you are at picking out tells and patterns I'm really surprised that you don't see this. I could point you to 6-8 articles that Dan has done this at this year. Now he's complaining that I removed a bit from Christgau that claimed that Rubber Soul is a better concept album than Pepper; I've never even heard anyone refer to RS as a concept album, but Dan insists that it needs to be included because Christgau said it. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to try and sort through everybody's edit histories, nor am I going to try and figure out how well the various articles reflect the sources. My few comments about this issue have been general, not specific. I think that with Dan56 training his notional beam of negativity at various articles, other editors such as yourself will be more motivated to work the material into them to form a well-rounded reference. Our readers ultimately benefit. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Bink. Its not a bad thing to add balanced or negative comments, but to add ridiculous negative stuff only to articles about music that you do not like is inappropriate POV pushing. Are you really stating on the record that you think its a good thing for an editor to add negative commentary to articles about music that they do not like because they do not like it? Really? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Just take 15 minutes to glance at these talk pages: Talk:News of the World (album)#Rock, Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#Rock and roll / blues, Talk:The Game (Queen album)#IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF "POMP ROCK", Talk:Babel (album)#Genre, Talk:...And Justice for All (album), and Talk:All Things Must Pass#To soul or not to soul. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, thanks.

I do not accept your assessment of the situation as fact, because I have not and choose not to investigate it myself. Nor do I think it is useful to complain about negative reviews if such reviews are indeed reliably sourced. The situation you say you are in, one in which another editor purposely puts negative material into articles, is a question of balance, a management of the sources. The negative material should be relevant, sufficiently high quality and represented in proper balance with regard to the general literature on the topic. If you think Dan56 should stop doing what you say he's doing, start an RFCU against him, accusing him of violating NPOV, the section about undue weight. Such an argument is difficult to carry forward if it is not extreme.

I consider myself guilty of putting negative material into articles the topics of which I do not like. I also remove puffery from such articles for the same reason, but in my defense, my motive is to establish a proper balance, not to push a proper balance into the negative. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)