User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

Happy New Year Binksternet!

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

I am confused

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

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

Happy New Year Binksternet!

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

A personalized New Year greeting

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

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

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

Notification of automated file description generation

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

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

Nazi Germany map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Third Opinion Request:

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

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

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

---

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

Jennifer Lyon

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

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

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

Let's go through the steps:

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

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

Request for mediation rejected

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

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

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

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:B-52s chopped.jpg

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

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

Survivor redirects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just so you know

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

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

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

Discussion about capitalization of parenthetical subtitles of songs

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Capitalization_of_song_parenthetical_subtitles. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

January 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

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

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

I don't know what the problem is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright note

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

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

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

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

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

Hello

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

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

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

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

Warren article

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

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

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

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

Duane E. Tressler

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

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

About the edits regarding David Irving's page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbcom notice

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

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

Rane Corporation

Hi Binksternet,

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

Best Regards,

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

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

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

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

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

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

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

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

Edit Warring Murphy etc.

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

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

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

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

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

Interested in a GA?

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

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

Martineau

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

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

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

AN/EW time in Murphy article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of Edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Main Page appearance: Charlie Chaplin

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

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

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

Seneca Falls convention

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

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

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

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

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

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

rfa

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

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

The Hurt Locker

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

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

please stop harrassing me

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

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

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

History of Creationism

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

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

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

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

work with me here...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE:What Makes You Beautiful

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

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

Disruptive editing

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

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

i dare you

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

.

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics opened

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

Behringer NPOV_dispute

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

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

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

ECat Edits

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

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

Terence McKenna

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

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