User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

Loss Free Resistors

Hello,

I see that you removed my entry on loss-free resistors but I don't understand why.

You wrote a comment that it is a side issue, though the entry includes references to well cited papers that show real applications and implementations of this. In addition, Loss Free Resistors are taught at universities world-wide and are discussed at length at the standard textbook on the subject, which is also cited.

It seems to me that this is a valid encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia, and shouldn't be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.245.117 (talk • contribs)

The subtopic of LFR is too synthetic to be described in the larger topic of resistors. There is no practical application. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I did a web search and LFR is pretty interesting though they don't have much resemblance to actual resistors. It seems reasonable to write a separate article about the topic, unless we already have something comparable. The regular resistor article could then have a brief mention and a wikilink. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If there is any practical usage then the new article on LFRs can be mentioned at the resistor article. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Rihannathebestlikeher

He/she did disrupting editing again (including unreliable sources; though I reverted it). Can you report him/her? 115.164.223.191 (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ad rock thang

how in the heck is Molly Ringwald dating Ad Rock controversial — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckT187 (talk • contribs)

Pope John Paul II (miniseries)

Will Part 1 paragraph 1 add the holding of Nowa Huta's first Mass on Christmas Eve, 1959 in what was completed as a "town without God" without a church, either as part of the sentence where he becomes Krakow's auxillary bishop in 1958 or as a separate sentence itself ? Part 2's paragraph 2 reference to him asking forgiveness should say "In 2000, he starts the third millennium in Israel..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Examplar (talk • contribs)

Dude, this is an encyclopedia. The article about the miniseries should not be a replacement biography of the pope whose life is depicted. Instead, the article about the miniseries should be about its production, distribution, reception and legacy. So stop worrying about the synopsis of the miniseries and concentrate instead on the other elements. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And find at least one reference for the article! Binksternet (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi Blinks. I understand your reasoning about changing my edit to And Justice for All. Thank you for the good work and all the work you've done for a great band. Kingslove2013 (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the thank you! Best wishes...

Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edits/reverts on the Iran-page

Hi. You reverted an edit on the establishment of Iran, claiming that the country of Iran has a longer history than what was edited. And you re-inserted the old information on the Persian Empire.

I am not here out of frustration or anger, but let me tell you, that we are having a lot of trouble across several pages, with an (unexplained) equalling of Iran and the Persian Empire(s) and several page-moves and edits are the planning. I would really appreciate you inputs on this topic. Was you reverting the Iran-page without thinking and just to hinder a change to the (supposedly) original text? Or do you have some serious refs on why Iran has been equalled to the Persian Empire? Now, I am not an expert on the details of the history of this part of the world, but I dont think Iran is a very old nation and name for that matter? Am I wrong? Why?

RhinoMind (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion should be taking place on the article talk page, Talk:Iran. Many more editors will be interested in weighing in. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah agreed. But I have already tried to start a discussion there, but nobody takes part in it. I hope you (and others) perhaps will engage there? If you dont explain yourself anywhere, you risk that your reverts will be ignored in the near future and perhaps even seen as edit warring. I dont want that, but it can happen if no one engage in some explaining. RhinoMind (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

84.236.225.130

Blocked 3 months - could you check the latest edits Special:Contributions/84.236.225.130 - there's half a dozen or so still current. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the block! I will check more closely the remaining edits. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The remaining diffs are all removals of uncited genres, which I cannot get too worked up about. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Eminem video?

I have absolutely no idea how I ended up linking an Eminem video. The link was supposed to be to Hitler's Warriors documentary by Guido Knopp from 1998. Anyways, cheers. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Good reference

I have found this page effective in filing "speedy deletes" over at Commons for these reappearing images. No need to fight it in DN, when it's clearly copyvio. Hugs! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Perfect! The deletes will come faster with that link.

Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

My edits

Listen to me sir, I try not to vandalize articles! And I don't even think I do. I think I actually do a pretty good job when I edit. Alliedarko1217 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not calling you a vandal, I'm saying that some of your edits are problematic, that you are shooting from the hip rather than looking at reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I understand where you're coming from now but I don't really know what a "reliable source" is. Alliedarko1217 (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Start at WP:Reliable sources. In the context of music genres, the Music Wikiproject has settled on a practice of using only prose descriptions in reviews rather than "sidebar" lists of genres as you might see in Allmusic off to the left. So if you want to add "progressive folk" or "glam folk" to the Béla Fleck and the Flecktones article, you need to see these genres used to describe the band in a review, preferably several reviews. Looking at an Allmusic review by Thom Jurek, you can see he says that Béla Fleck and the Flecktones demonstrate a "seamless, unclassifiable meld of jazz, progressive bluegrass, rock, classical, funk, and world music traditions" on the album Rocket Science. Off to the left in the sidebar are genres and styles that we have not been using: "Country, Jazz, Bluegrass, Modern Creative, Progressive Bluegrass." So the prose part supports genres for the album which include jazz, progressive bluegrass, rock, classical, funk and world, but not "modern creative" as in the sidebar.

If you think to yourself that a song, album or band has a certain genre, you can search online to see whether there are reliable sources which agree with your assessment, and put those in the article. You would look for newspaper and magazine reviews, established websites which publish a review, and books about music. Here is a Google search for one of the terms you wanted, and it shows no support for "glam" in regard to the band Béla Fleck and the Flecktones. You could repeat the search with other words. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Alliedarko1217 (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Colombian genre warrior

I don't know if there is an LTA case, but now it seems like there should be. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I will keep looking for more IPs. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Drug testing gender inequality is a big issue to the NIH right now and against the law yet few know it. Raise awareness.

When the government legally defines it as sexism it's probably OK for wikipedia to say it's sexism, NPOV does not stand for No Point of View. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's the flavor-of-the-day issue for some, and a non-issue for others. By far most tests have the same results when performed on male vs female test subjects. Binksternet (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bink. I hope you are well as the summer winds down. This thread was started by long term drawer full of socks creator User:CensoredScribe. Feel free to remove it or leave it as you wish. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 12:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping somebody would spot this guy's sockmaster as it was obvious he was returning to disruption. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

...And Justice for All

Hey Bink, according to the review, the lead shouldn't introduce exclusive information. Thus I suggested the section to have the full description of the cover art, rather than a few words only.--Retrohead (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead section should be a summary of the article body, per WP:LEAD. The same exact text should not repeat, not even a close paraphrase of unusual words. If there is too much repetition between the lead section and the article body then the reading flow is not FA level.

What you want to do is put the detail in the article body, and keep only a summary in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my point. The large description should go in the article's body, the summary in the lead, not the other way round.--Retrohead (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Black Sabbath

I've got it semi-protected. I haven't reverted again because I'm concerned I might be seen as edit-warring. I'm over 3RR already. I consider the IP's edits as vandalism but an admin may not agree, so it might be better if you revert it. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

A curious incident

I just ran across this by accident, and knowing your penchant for SPIs I thought I'd notify you in case you wanted to create a case. There are three posters on this AfD who look like pretty obvious sockpuppets of each other. They all three create their signatures within parentheses, like so: (~~~~); they all three have similar histories; they all three use similar rhetoric, and all three of them have run afoul, to varying degrees, of Dougweller. ETA: I just noticed there are two more of them on this AfD (the socks tend to vote on the same AfDs). They all also seem a bit spelling or typing challenged. Those are all the hints I'll give you. The rest is up to you, Sherlock, should you take an interest. Cheers! Softlavender (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Intriguing! This will be an interesting case. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You, Location and Dougweller will likely be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Electromechanic, which is the Starman005 and Boss Reality sockpuppet case I put together, named for the first account I could find. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you have made an excellent case, counselor. One thought: I think you're supposed to place and link the suspected sockmaster at the top, right? I don't know that you need my comments, but I will support your request of Check User. BTW, WegianWarrior seems to be a repeat player (along with Dougweller) in the AfDs (opposing the socks), so he may want to comment; that wasn't a ping so if you want him to possibly chime in you'd need to ping or notify him. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I just let the templates create the usual sections, so I don't know why Electromechanic was not shown at the top with user links. I have added it in. Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I just got a popup on my page when signing o about being mentioned. Isn't it curious that I'm now getting this accusation thrown at me by way of inclusion with these here and it's curious that some of that list were the very ones that supported me . No it's not! First I'm accused of working for Dr Rima Laibow, then being a fan of hers then working for Scott Tips and / or The Natural Solutions Foundation. What next ? BTW: There's 4 accusations I could throw right now but I'm not going to do that. I could even make compalints about the censorship and vandalism of my articles but have not. It isn't my mission! This is all seriously becoming an amazingly annoying joke. What next ? (Boss Reality (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC))

Next is you will be blocked, being that the Starman005 and George-Archer accounts absolutely prove sockpuppetry, and the accounts Joecreation, Brother Samson, Boss Reality and Canned Heat Returns were judged "technically Likely" to be connected to these. That means all of your accounts will be blocked, and you will have to choose one with which to appeal your case, promising never again to use multiple accounts on the same articles and discussions, to make it seem as if more people agree. Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

These are not my puppets and contrats for using the famous "discredit the opposition" "when all else" fails technique. I don't work for any organisations as per the previous childish and clumsy veiled accusations that I've had to endure.
If I really wanted to, I could let loose with some of the things I've seen here but I haven't. It seems that ignoring the obvious is in play. I see what the agenda is here. I have never been forgiven for creating the article of the B.A. Brooks film Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill and then the Dr Rima Laibow article. That one was blatantly and deliberately destroyed with what I firmly believe is agenda-driven censorship. Looking back now I realise that the creation of the Scott Tips article was a bad move. Three articles in a row about controversial people / subject has angered some people here and sent their blood pressure up. The Laibow and Tips articles were about highly notable people. Tragically they are people who are controversial and challenge the big-pharma and GM industries. I've also proven that I'm not a single purpose editor and yet, I still have to put up with nonsense. You and I both know (If you want to be honest with yourself) that certain articles are not allowed here on this site. Look at what Wikipedia has become. Have a good long look and then have a deep think about what I have said here. (Boss Reality (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC))

I'm not worried about articles that are about controversy. I would not delete them if they were notable. Take a look at the article black genocide (which I created) for an example of a very controversial article that nobody is considering for deletion.

Regarding your socks, I am just telling you what I expect will happen, based on past experience. You and all the "likely" accounts are going to be blocked indefinitely, and if you want to edit Wikipedia again on the up-and-up you will have to select one of the accounts, admit that you have abused multiple accounts, and promise not to do it again. If you hold the stance that you have never abused multiple accounts then you will be forever blocked, because checkuser evidence says otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I see it's a waste of time telling you these aren't my sock or puppets. For second time,hey're not and I'm done with talking to a ????? I have now worked out your angle. That's why it's a waste of time trying to reason with you. I've been discredited at different angles and this is yet another. It would be easy to deal with you if you were just being silly so I'm giving up on any kind of attempt at reason. And yes I saw the Black Genocide article you created. I see it beginning with In the United States, black genocide is a conspiracy theory. Well done! You're now in control of it. Have a nice time in your life. (Boss Reality (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC))

In the United States, black genocide is a conspiracy theory

John Bonham

I noticed you recently made an edit to the John Bonham page. You recently said, per Ringo Starr, that an abundance of quotes should be avoided. I've noticed that the Bonham influence section is packed full of quotes. Doesn't this need reducing? Rodericksilly (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

My edit was more about reverting a serial genre warrior than about examining the Bonham bio. Taking a look at it now...

The lead section is too short. The gravestone inscription should be deleted as unimportant; it should in any case not be using the pull quote style. The Charlie Watts quote says nothing helpful and should be removed entirely. The other quotes might be trimmed but I would have a hard time figuring out which ones. Binksternet (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. It seems to me that there is a serious overload of quotes on this section, even if we all accept Bonham is the greatest and most influential rock drummer ever. It seems fair to me to say Charlie Watts called Bonham "the best" and leave it at that. I'm also concerned about the sources of these quotes. I've no doubt Roger Taylor said what he said, I think it was from a radio interview, but is imdb an acceptable source? Also, Chad Smith is a Youtube video, and Eric Carr's quote looks like it's from a self-published source similar to that which was unacceptable for the Ringo Starr page. Am I right? Rodericksilly (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice that Watts did not actually say that Bonham was the best drummer in the world; rather, he said Bonham was the best at being Bonham, which is sentimental nothingness. (You are the best at being Rodericksilly and I am the best at being Binksternet. We're all the best.)

The Roger Taylor quote is pesky—impossible for me to track down the original. I would dump it because of its poor sourcing.

The Chad Smith bit is from a 2010 BBC documentary, so that's good enough. It just happens to be hosted on Youtube, with possible copyright violation.

You're right, the Eric Carr quote is hosted on a self-published website, so it cannot be used to describe a living person. Since Bonham is not living, the quote could be argued as okay. It's still not a great source, and we have better ones. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting points, thanks for that. I didn't think Youtube was ever acceptable as a source? Don't we need to use the name of the documentary and its broadcast date instead? Rodericksilly (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There are times when Youtube is acceptable, for instance if a video segment is uploaded by the copyright owners. Something found on the BBC official channel could be used to support whatever it said. That said, the Chad Smith quote should be cited to the actual BBC documentary title and whatever else that identifies it. Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll move this discussion to the Bonham talk page. Rodericksilly (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Input at FARC

Hey Bink, you're an experienced Wikipedian, can you offer an opinion regarding Manila Metro Rail Transit System FA status here? I've argued that the FARC was advancing too long and most ineffective, but additional comment are needed because of the low interest. Appreciate if you can jump in.--Retrohead (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. I have no interest in that topic. If I have time today I'll take a look. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Nanking

Would you revert your recent edits at "Battle of Nanking"? The entire rest of the article is properly cited to reliable sources, so why should we include that one section of text with virtually no citations at all? The first paragraph includes citations to an unpublished blog and the personal website of a non-expert. It also cites an article by David Askew which is linked online, but if you read the article you can see that it actually doesn't mention one single thing from that particular paragraph and thus is not properly cited.

The problem with using uncited text like this is that it increases the chance of factual errors. For instance, this paragraph says that the first bombing of Nanking took place on September 21. I know of no source that says that and the Battle of Nanking article already mentions the fact that the first bombing of Nanking took place on August 15. In his book on the subject Tokushi Kasahara devotes enough space on the August 15 bombing raid that I'm already convinced that it could one day be its own article, but that's a project for the future. Also, you re-inserted a picture of Naruhiko Higashikuni, but he was an imperial prince and by and large was only the nominal commander of operations. As Kasahara notes, it was 3rd Fleet commander Kiyoshi Hasegawa and 2nd Combined Air Group commander Teizo Mitsunami who were in charge of operations. We could mention that in the article, but there's so much to say about the bombing, which started long before the start of the Battle of Nanking on December 1, that I figured it would be better to keep it short and give it its own article one day.

Underneath the section on "Aerial bombardment of Nanking" there are for some reason subsections on the Nine Power Conference and the Battle of Shanghai, all of which is glaringly uncited compared to the rest of the article. Obviously these are not appropriate subsections, but moreover extended discussion of the Battle of Shanghai is not necessary for an article on the Battle of Nanking. However, the Nine Power Conference is already mentioned in the article and I don't know why we need to mention it twice.

I think you may have been a bit hasty in reverting me before taking a look at these significant problems with the text. It is not cited, large parts of it are redundant, it includes too much unnecessary information on the Battle of Shanghai, and it includes some factual inaccuracies which are clearly contradicted and refuted in other parts of this very same article. It seems clear to me that we should remove the entire thing, at very least until citations can be provided.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I wonder where this talk of "100 fly-overs" came from. The official records of the Japanese military mention only 50 raids in total, but on the other hand the Chinese evidently counted the raids differently because the city of Nanking, which recorded the raids up to October 15, counted 65 raids. I suppose it depends on how one defines a "fly-over" but therein lies the peril of using text which doesn't cite any sources. Even the improperly cited blog and personal website don't appear to mention it at all.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I spent some time looking through the supplied sources and more results from Google book searches, and I agree that the disputed text has too many things wrong with it. I would certainly like to have something about monoplane vs biplane fighters in the article, and I would like to see a section about the air operations, but again, the disputed text has too many things wrong with it. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. My personal conclusion on the matter is that the sections dealing with the Battle of Shanghai should largely be left to the article on the Battle of Shanghai. By contrast, the bombing of Nanking is clearly relevant to the article, but even that shouldn't be discussed in too much length because it includes the period from August 15 to December 1. I was a little worried that the article was getting too long by Wikipedia standards so I figured the first things to trim down would be the parts that happened before and after the battle like the bombing. The fact is that the bombing of Nanking deserves an entire article just like the Bombing of Chongqing. More than enough has been written on it to fill a whole article. Sadly I can't give you a time estimate on when I could create the article because I have other projects on the go, but suffice to say that someone must definitely create an article on the Bombing of Nanking during the Second Sino-Japanese War sooner or later.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverting my edit in the US Armed Forces.

I think you should really read the article I cited because calling it "nonsense speculation" is blatantly ignorant. Calling the US Military the "best" is also ignorant and there really is nothing to back it up other than the size of the US military and it's technology which hardly earns the title as best. The US military after all has yet to really prove it's capabilities on it's own in a large scale conflict. Calling any military the best is childish anyways. It's almost like saying the Pittsburgh Penguins are the best because they have such good players. If that's all that mattered then they would be but it isn't. The same goes for the US with it's technology and sheer size. Don;t be ignorant.

Nick3111997 (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Nick3111997

One article is not enough to counter thousands of reports that the the US military is the largest in the world. Being the "best" is only provable in battle, so the article cannot answer that question. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for work on Kurt Chew-Een Lee

		The Biography Barnstar
		Outstanding work (and a very belated barnstar!) on Kurt Chew-Een Lee! Glad you could incorporate my orphan sandbox work and medals table so well into your other superb edits of this much improved article! Pylon (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the note! The pugnacious late warrior would thank you, too, if he could. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

All-caps in Japanese artists name

Hi, I saw You edited the reference titles of Gackt's article by changing Gackts name in them from all-caps "GACKT" to "Gackt". It is something for some time thought to do, and did it per Manual of Style/Capital letters and Manual of Style/Trademarks, when edited articles Mysteries of Yoshitsune I&II, Re:Born, and Best of the Best: Wild and Mild. But in the third case, not so lately, changed to all-caps again, without much reason. It is something bothering me for quiet a while. I discussed this with Xfansd shortly in now deleted discussion, you can see it here in revision history. I really would like to hear your thoughts on this, and what we could about it.--Crovata (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Xfansd said it was unfair that some trademarks can be all lower case, but none can be all caps. I don't agree that this is unfair, as lower case is a kind of de-emphasis, while all-caps is shouting. The two situations are not the same.

At any rate, the Trademarks guideline is what was driving my edit. Whether or not we like the guideline it still should be followed. If the guideline is somehow faulty then it should be changed. That battle should be fought head-on at the guideline talk page, not by guerrilla action in the articles. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

When in regard to people's names the situations are exactly the same; you don't place more or less emphasis on names that way. I'll temporarily agree with the assumption that all caps is always shouting for argument's sake. The act of shouting is a way to emphasize. If all caps is the opposite of all lowercase, why would de-emphasis be acceptable but not emphasis? Again, this is simply putting the stylization once in an article to inform, not using it throughout. Xfansd (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you work to change the guideline to allow GACKT. Otherwise, you could equally fight to disallow the lower case bell hooks which is certainly a stylized name. That is, you could fight to make lower case names be capitalized, so that the guideline is kept. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)