User talk:Binksternet/Archive20

Please have a look

Here's a proposed change to the Majd article I want to make sure is OK with recent editors (follows BLP and all) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop removing information about elevation of Denver

In this edit you hid relevant information about Denver's elevation. Please stop edit warring over this—the city is not exactly one mile high if there are federal geography databases saying it is two feet lower than one mile. If you continue edit warring you can be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The City and County of Denver has "officially" declared its elevation to be exactly 5280 feet above the geoid. It's all a matter of where you place the center of the city. The City and County says it's the western steps of the state capitol. They move the official elevation point up and down the steps so they can claim to be exactly one mile high despite survey and geoid changes. It's all quite silly. To make a big production about two feet of elevation seems beyond trivial, especially when the geoid fluctuates by five feet. I happen to be a 64-year-old Professional Engineer working for the State of Colorado at the state capitol if you want a reference source. Yours aye,  Buaidh  21:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Debate over the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Binksternet,

I don't know if you remember me, we talked a long time ago about the different pages related to the atomic bombings. I was just taking a look at the mess over on this page. It looks like a lot was going on for a long time and it's been relatively quiet for the last month. Given tomorrow is the anniversary I'm sure there will be plenty of edits. As I think I told you, I don't edit very much anymore though I still sometimes use Wikipedia to look up stuff. Just wanted to thank you for all your hard work on those pages. 203.100.165.184 (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome! Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK requests

Greetings I have some DYK nominations which are eating dust and was wondering if you can bring light to them:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Cognitive_vulnerability
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Job_attitude
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/stimulus_modality

I thank you for your help. Khyati Gupta (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The hooks which involve a piped link hiding the exact name of the article are questionable. Can you work the exact name into the hooks? Otherwise, the subject matter is not of interest to me. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Beatles mediation

Hi Binksternet. Sorry, but I just collapsed the comment you made at the Beatles mediation. It's nothing personal - it's just that we don't want the participants to reply to each other's posts just yet. We're trying to keep the discussion quite structured at the moment, so I hope you can forgive me for the inconvenience. And feel free to email me or message me on my talk page at any time if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you want to join the mediation, we will need you to submit a statement and list yourself as a party. Are you involved enough in the dispute that you want to do this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I submitted a statement and listed myself. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleting comments on a mediation talk page

Please "Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles" do not delete my comments again. It's not very nice at all.--andreasegde (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

When you emailed your statement to the moderators, did I follow your statement up with critical comments of my own? No, I did not. The statement I made on the mediation page is exactly like your emailed statement—it stands alone as my argument. It is not a response to anybody else; it is simply my full statement of my views on the issue. As such, it should not be replied to. Check out SilkTork's statement higher up on the mediation page... Right, nobody challenged it or even replied to it. Give me that same courtesy. Please remove your reply. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You may have noticed that you are a tad late. Adding your comments after a request by the mediators to not do so is to wilfully ignore their polite request. Deleting comments by another user on a talk page is very bad form, and you know that.--andreasegde (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Please look up one thread higher and you'll see that I was invited to add my name and make a statement. It is not your place to stop me; that is the mediators' job if they so choose. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I was not stopping you from doing anything at all, but merely making the point that the mediators had politely asked for no more comments at the present time. Your deletion of my comments stating that was out of line. BTW, Mr. Stradivarius closed the comments at 05:27, 6 August 2012, but asked you to comment at 05:36, 6 August 2012. I think you should take the matter up with him.--andreasegde (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There was nothing polite about your comment, and you appear to have missed the irony of the situation; that the mediators had recently asked for no more commenting on the posts of other parties. Your comment on my post was exactly the thing you were protesting against! Anyway, I knew I had been invited to contribute, so I did. I acted upon the assumption that my statement was to be mine alone, that it was to stand unchallenged, just like SilkTork's and just like your emailed statement. You jumped the gun in your response, assuming the worst of me. I will let the mediators determine how to use my contribution and I suggest you do the same. Now please stay off my talk page. Binksternet (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi again Andreasegde, Binksternet. I don't really think this is such a big deal, because actually, you're both right. Andreasegde, you're right that at the moment Feezo and I don't want there to be any discussion in the mediation, and Binksternet, you're right that you are perfectly entitled to post your statement. There simply seems to have been a misunderstanding that Binksternet's statement was made in reply to some of the earlier comments from the involved parties. This is understandable seeing as he came to the mediation late and chose to post his statement publicly, but I don't see that there is any problem with it. Now that the resulting discussion has been collapsed, I don't think there's anything else to do. Feezo and I will be deciding how to proceed soon enough, so it's probably best to wait until that happens. Let me know if you have any questions in the meantime. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

resistor

I regret to say that I disagree with your decision to remove the parasitical component section from the article on resistor. I have started a discussion on the matter in the talk page if you wish to continue there. 173.52.114.254 (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

SBA List

As one of the few other people interested in maintaining NPOV at that article, do you think there's some step we should take to try to reduce disruption there? Most recent edits there have been disruptive or at best unconstructive, but the problem isn't so frequent that I think an RFP would succeed (the way I just got Kathleen Sebelius semiprotected for a few months). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

MastCell has semiprotected. I always forget that any abortion article is supposed to be semiprotected - shame, could have saved myself the work. Cleanup still needed, but at least no one will be hampered by IPs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dang activists. The protection is good. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Makoto Ogawa (pilot) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Guadalcanal Campaign

Hello. You are among the top contributors to this Featured Article. Work has begun on changing the citation format and referencing conventions in use on the article. There is a discussion underway at the talk page for the article. Feel free to participate. Kablammo (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Duns Scotus article

Re your comments on the Duns Scotus article not being a 'vital' article. I did explain this. Scotus is a giant of the Western intellectual tradition. He is one of the three most important medieval philosophers (together with Aquinas and Ockham). So, whether or not he is on the Wikipedia list of vital articles, isn't an article about him relevant to the competition? I did try and enter Scotus on the level 3 list but someone removed him, as there 'can only be 1,000 articles'. Right, but I see Bing Crosby and Elvis Presley are on that list. Is Wikipedia saying that Bing Crosby is more important than Duns Scotus? Quisquiliae (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have never tried to change the tier 3 or tier 4 article lists, so I don't know what advice to give you. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help me change the level 3 list. I tried the other day but someone replied that only 1,000 articles were allowed. I propose removing the article about Bing Crosby in the composers section, and replacing it with Duns Scotus in the philosophers section. Easy. Quisquiliae (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Try suggesting the change on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles. Somebody will respond there. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm giving up. Well, I'm writing up a piece for the THES on Wikipedia quality and accuracy which will include this strange event. Surely if you are nominating yourself as a 'judge' for a competition about articles which are vital to Wikipedia, surely you should be able to 'judge' whether an article is important enough? Quisquiliae (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have never put my mind to the artificial challenge of trying to divine which 1,000 topics in the world are the most important to people who read the English language. There is never going to be one right answer—it will always be a judgement call, a different solution for each observer. I expect the increment between anybody's number 1,000 and number 1,001 would be be vanishingly small, but it would be enough to bump it off the list. That's how unfair such a list can be.

I can see there is a recent and vigorous discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Horse, Cattle, Exploration, with Soybean, Bicycle and Candle among the topics proposed to be taken off of the 1,000-member list. Do you think John Duns Scotus is more important than any of the articles they are discussing? Tell them so. Otherwise, concentrate on listing the article at tier 4, the 10,000 most important articles. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The rules of the Core Contest are very sensibly flexible, and there is absolutely no requirement for the article to be on the Vital Articles lists, which are no doubt a worthy effort at deciding how long a piece of string is, but are not really worth taking seriously, or arguing about (especially at tier 4). The Duns Scotus article gets around 80K views a year, which is not massive, and only about 10% of Aquinas's views, but a very respectable figure for a medieval philosopher. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

re: ‎Curie

Appreciated :) I want to get it to GA soon, and I have a bunch of other Poland-themed articles I want to improve this year. Will have to check if any other fall under core... Copernicus probably would. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

<Grin> I'm glad you're okay with my bold decision. I just want to show everybody how much the core articles are being improved this month. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

<sigh> An oldtimer like you is supposed to know what belongs to disambig pages. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I made extra work for you. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, your work was not in vain: it seems that some of your findings are missing from Marie_Curie#Tributes and you may add them there. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Bukochosho

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Yoshio Yoshida (pilot)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Great work once again! I'm planning to work on an article on Japan's air defences, but have only got up to what's at User:Nick-D/Drafts5. You might be interested in the article by Alvin Coox referenced there if you haven't seen it. Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That Coox chapter in the larger book is really good! I had never seen it. Thanks for the signal.

Regarding your sandbox work, I think that's a fine topic. Me, I would couch it in American English: defenses rather than defences. I don't read Japanese (not by a long shot) but I gather that the 70th Sentai was one of the more important air groups for fighter defense, stationed as they were just northeast of Tokyo. There must have been other important defensive Sentai; your notional article should list them and say where they operated. Binksternet (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion. I've got several sources to develop orders of battle, and this would probably be a good starting point. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring noticeboard

Hi, Binksternet, just a heads up that you were reported at WP:3RRN for edit-warring on Cold fusion. It was a meritless, malformed report, and I closed it as no violation, but I thought you might want to know.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:DRN volunteer here. Our instructions say that "[DRN] is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. Has this been anywhere else? I am trying to decide whether this should be closed as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The only place that I know of is Talk:Cold fusion, not a noticeboard or other larger forum. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Pantothenic shows that Pantothenic posted to 3RRN, to DRN and to the article's talk page. It's the latter that is producing the best response. Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Makoto Ogawa (pilot)

Yngvadottir (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Shah's Talk Page

Thanks for your message. Calling someone an "illiterate thug" and expressing hatred and verbal abuse goes against Wikipedia's policy. The Talk Page should NOT be used to express PERSONAL beliefs and should not be reduced to name calling. If you read the comment of that person, titled "incomplete statements", you'll see that he is using the Talk Page to express his personal views and therefore should be removed, if you agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.157.161 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The Shah is dead for 32 years. His ghost can stand the mild abuse; he has weathered far worse. I think there was a useful discussion following the comment, so I restored all of it. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Dualus / Nrcprm2026 / IP sockpuppet report

Thanks for adding the new IP. I saw that you have requested checkuser. There have been previous SPI reports (you can find them in the SPI archives for Dualus) where checkuser has been declined because there is a policy against using checkuser information to connect an account to an IP. There's only one active or recently active account in the SPI report (User:Npmay). Are you requesting checkuser specifically to look for other active accounts we may have missed? --Amble (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I am frustrated that the process seems not to be working. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps your checkuser request will help move it along. It wouldn't be surprising if the CU request itself gets declined, though. --Amble (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Dualus wasted more of my time than every other troublemaker put together in all the time I've been here. He almost drove us all nuts at the OWS article. Gandydancer (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I am so ready for Wikipedia to become the encyclopedia anyone with a registered username can edit. That one step would help immensely with sockpuppets. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The history with Nrcprm2026 and his socks seems to be similar, at a different set of articles. I don't think the connection between Dualus and Nrcprm2026 has been made before. I put together the SPI, and sent an e-mail to an arb and to the arb list... no response so far, though. I don't see what else I can do. --Amble (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

General Motors streetcar conspiracy

Thank you for taking the time to read this note. I ask that you reconsider your reversions of the removals I made. Without those removals, only the Cato Institute gets the dubious honor of having citations that focus on only some of its funding sources. In contrast, other entities mentioned in the article do not get such treatment. This clearly works against the article's neutrality.

Your suggestion that "Bias for other groups can be added" in your edit summary is as confirming as it is dismissive: It acknowledges the faults of the article and at the same time suggests an approach of adding additional citations. I agree fully with that approach, however until it is pushed to completion it is a neutrality problem.

Therefore I recommend that we remove the material and acknowledge on the article's talk page that there is a problem and there is a solution but it needs complete implementation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.73.50 (talk • contribs)

I stand by my reversion, and in fact it should be expanded to say that Randal O'Toole, the author of "The Great Streetcar Conspiracy", has long been biased against urban density and light rail, ever since he got pissed off about zoning changes in his neighborhood. He wrote the piece with pre-determined conclusions in mind rather than studying the problem, gathering evidence, and letting the revealed facts speak for themselves.

Cato is not a neutral reporter, so the piece by Cato cannot be presented in the same vein as one by an investigative reporter. In fact, Cato is an advocacy group bent on supporting political concepts. Your IP address geolocates to Waltham, MA, where Cato Research is located, so I wonder whether you are not editing here on their behalf. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make a cogent case for keeping the article as is. That all sources may have bias isn't in doubt, but what is objectionable is the singling out of just one of them to instill bias in the article.

With regards to your insinuation that I am a member of Cato Research, let me point out that I never presumed bad faith on your part, and I ask that you return the favor. Or are you arriving at your own pre-determined conclusions? 71.174.73.50 (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing to keep the article as it is, I'm arguing that the bias of O'Toole should be made more clear, in addition to the bias of Cato. Cato is not a neutral party here. They are political activists.

I see you have not denied involvement with Cato. Binksternet (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. So you are arguing to further expand the bias of the reference, without any corresponding expansion of the biases of other references in the article? The Nader group is also engaged in political activism, for example.

I am wary of answering your question about my affiliation, because that shouldn't have any bearing on the point that the article is biased, especially since all I seek is equal treatment for all sources. Secondly, since you aren't extending me the presumption of good faith, I am concerned that you have already arrived at your conclusion and would dismiss any assertion to the contrary. Help me assuage that by answering this inquiry: Is it possible that I came across this article not because I am a member of Cato Research, but because I am a resident of a city of over 60,000 that once had a thriving streetcar system? 71.174.73.50 (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Equal treatment is not appropriate for unequal sources. Cato is not neutral. Should you care to find some dirt on who pays Nader to talk, feel free to add it. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we are talking in circles here. I beseech you to open your mind to the possibility that leaving the content as is goes against Wikipedia's goals. Whilst it is alright in many circumstances for an article to remain "half baked" in several dimensions, I submit that allowing it to remain as such when it works against neutrality is worse than leaving it incomplete. Part of neutrality is equal treatment to a certain degree, after all, and this situation is within that degree. 71.174.73.50 (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guideline is specifically not intended to provide an artificially neutral balance for unbalanced views. It asks that views be presented in proportion. It describes how opposing views (such as the one O'Toole wrote for Cato) should be presented in relation to their prominence. The prominence of Cato's opinion on the topic comes from Cato's opposition to light rail and its promotion of the bus and car industries with their greater dependence on oil. The context of industry funding is critical to the presentation of Cato's opinion. It's all integral. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states "[...] in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." The contention is the way the source is presented versus how the other sources are presented add bias to the article by effectively taking a side. In this case, the article's deep inspection into the funding sources of one source and no such treatment for the others is not neutral. Your objection is essentially your own value judgment on the worth of the source: That it is so biased, it is correct and proper to slant the article against it. We all have such value judgments which is why I asked you to open your mind to that possibility. 71.174.73.50 (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You might already have done so, but take a look through the archived talk pages of that article, and see how venomous is the usual reaction to Cato. (Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy) I'm not the only stumbling block to your goal; I'm not alone in considering Cato to be slanted in its appreciation of this topic. You have not convinced me and you will likely not convince a majority of other editors. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Civility concern (at Maafa 21 talk page)

Hi, Binksternet.

I admit that at times I have been uncivil (WP:CIV) in my comments within the Maafa 21 talk page, particularly in a few of my responses to Roscelese. I want you to know that I have attempted to address this personal shortcoming at Roscelese's talk page.

God bless!

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You repeated the notional incivilities in the course of the apology! Looks to me like you took it as an opportunity to restate your case rather than apologize. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll remove the quotations immediately. Thanks! -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

I don't know what went wrong today, but when I tried to add my one little comment to the Christianity and Homosexuality talk page, the entire page wound up blank! I couldn't get it restored. Not sure how you did it. I appreciate you getting my comment back in, but it really is in the wrong place (which is what happened when I first inserted it). It was supposed to go at the end of the Catholic Church section. At this point, after having so much trouble with it today, I am afraid to edit it again. But if you feel brave, could you move it to the end of Catholic Church? Many thanks! BroWCarey (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll move it for you. I don't know what advice to give you except don't worry about such big editing blunders—they are easy enough to fix. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Your revert at Neanderthal

Did you intend to revert the wording at Neanderthal? We seem to have consensus on the Talk page for making the language more tentative. But your revert has restored a version that is more definitive, and also uses the problematic word "recent" (given that in time in will no longer be recent). TimidGuy (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was only aiming at the IP vandal. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much. No problem. TimidGuy (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of John Hilliard (artist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Hilliard (artist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hilliard (artist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jsharpminor (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe I saved the article by adding an encyclopedia source dedicated to the guy. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Iran Constituent Assembly, 1949

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Carlos Gardel

Hi Binkstern,

Thank you for your note regarding my conrtibution regarding Carlos Gardel. In regards to the citations I must say that for the most part the documentation needed was already present in the original article, were needed I added, or thought I did, new materials. Perhaps, the information regarding Gardel's controversy was taken to be onesided, where in reality that's furthest from the truth.

My changes only provide additional information regarding one of the theories of Gardel's birthplace, and because there are many I've taken the liberty of removing any assertation of one over the other.

My changes are: a) Inclusion of Gardel's brithmother and father, with archival photographs of them and of Gardel and his family; b) mention of his birthyear as regards this theory to be 1875, this is documented by a 1885 census of Burdeaux (linked document) where it shows a Charles Gardes to have been born in 1875 in South America (this proof was already present in the bio); c) mentiones that the Toulousse theory gives his YOB as 1890 but there are archival documentation of him attending first year in Buenos Aires in 1887, documentation was already present in original bio; d) mentioned that during his lifetime it was common knowledge that Gardel was born in Uruguay, for this the original bio had captions from reporters of the time as well as Gardel's own claims.

I could also mention that all official documents in existence shows his place of birth to be Tacuarembo and not Toulouse. These include passports, national id's and all the documentation regarding Gardel's argentine nationalization.

There is very little documentation regarding Carlos Gardel and all of if indicates his POB to be in Uruguay. In all honesty, the Toulousse theory is based solely on a handwritten note allegedly written by him and a handfull of heresay.

If your position is to be a mediator in these regards I would request that you allow inclusion of these documents into his bio.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorzaluruguay (talk • contribs) 21:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out the guide for sources: WP:Reliable sources. It says that we generally avoid self-published websites such as blogs. They are not reliable. Your assertions are based on blogs, but the article was written based on a scholarly article written in UNESCO's journal. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to remove Toulousse has a possible POB, I'm just adding documentation to a theory that was already mentioned in the article, this documentation has been compiled by local historians, professional and amateur alike, some are indivuduals and some are recognized organizations, and you are right, all documentation regarding Gardel's POB is housed in blogs, including UNESCO'S article. The only difference is that where some blogs show copies of real documentation, the other merely states hearsay. The documents that need to be shown are the charged remains of his passport where it states his POB (not included in the original article), a copy of Gardel's artist document dated 1918 where it shows his POB to be Uruguay (not included in the original article), copy of Gardel's original national ID, where it clearly shows his POB. I could add these documents to the body of work without the citations to the blogs, but I would ask that the references to Toulouse in the original article that are referenced by blogs also be removed. [[User:|zorzaluruguay|zorzaluruguay]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorzaluruguay (talk • contribs) 23:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Binkstern,

I've just included a few documents that back Gardel's Uruguay theory. One is the charred remains of his passport, for which I only included the piece that shows his POB, a second is a copy of Gardel's argentine ID card that shows his POB to be in Uruguay, and the third is a copy of the 1886 census of the Bordeux region that shows a Charles Gardes (name given to Gardel by french theorists) to have been born in South America. These items have all been obtained from public archives.

My intent is to shed light, with documentation, to the theory that Gardel was in fact born in Uruguay. I hope that these documents are sufficient and meet wikipedia's documentation requirements. I may also include additional documentation as they become available. Also, please note that the referencs in the original article are referenced by private blogs, which as you noted do not constitute citations, hence I ask that you remove them from the article and ask the original writer to provide documentation to their work.

Please advise before re-editing this work.

kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorzaluruguay (talk • contribs) 00:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a hard rule against arguing evidence based on your own ideas. The policy is found at WP:No original research. Soon, I will be writing about the various sources we can use. You'll see my discussion at Talk:Carlos Gardel. See you there! Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Binkstern,

What you are accusing me of doing (relying on unsubstantiated sources, pushing my own ideas, and lacking of original research) is grossly misplaced and is exactly what proponents of the second theory are doing. I have never, nor do I ever wish to, curtail the ideas and positions of others, specially if they are well documented. To accuse me of bending the evidence to obtain a goal is a sad statement to be made by someone representing such an organization. The documents showned by me are not new at all, they have been in existence for almost a century, some since the late 19th century, and is in the public domain in the US, Argentina, Colombia, France and Uruguay. I have not, and is not my intention to, remove the work proposed by others.

The documentation uploaded last night by me is not contested by any scholar. It is the documentation used by Argentine scholars to show that he was Argentine. The idea that Mr. Gardel was born in Uruguay is not mine by any means. This documentation complies with wikipedias strickt copyright requirements. There are some peoples that posit this documentation has obtained fraudulently by Mr. Gardel, but the proof of this has yet to bee seen.

I do applaud your zeal in assuring the best quality of work is published by this organization, and ask only that the same zeal be applied to the second theory. The main source of the second theory, Bocaz's piece publish by UNESCO press, does not comply with wikipedia's own source guidelines. This work lacks all all foundations to be considered scholarly, or even a first draft research paper, and that is because it's intention was never such (it merely posits its point ipso facto with-out referncing), it was merely an intertainment peace, as its author is know to be.

kind regards --Zorzaluruguay (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows a WP:Neutral point of view policy. Proper weight is given each theory. The Uruguay theory cannot be given equal weight because it is dismissed by so many of Gardel's biographers. We are not going to let the reader decide—scholars have already decided. Check out the list of books I recently added to the talk page. The mass is strongly against Uruguayan birth. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe your work to be biased and proceeded to ask for conflict resolution.--Zorzaluruguay (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say my work is properly weighted, not biased. I think you should have taken the issue to WP:NPOVN first, but let's see how DRN goes. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI Talk:Reagan

According to my watchlist and the page history, you made a comment at Talk:Reagan but strangely it does not seem to appear, when I view the page. Bug, or am I losing it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I see it just fine down there at the very bottom. Try refreshing your browser. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to bother but it's still very odd, I just tried to view in Safari and in Chrome and still do not see it in regular view (at the bottom or eleswhere) I assume it will correct itself, eventually, or my browsers (or eyes) will correct themselves, otherwise I might raise it at tech help, at some point. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's appeared, all on its own. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest/Entries#Marie_Curie

I am done with my stage one expansion. For more, I'll have to actually get a book or two :) I've nominated the article at WP:GA. Any comments would be appreciated (as would a proofreading by a native English editor :). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will look at it.

Because of my role as Core Contest judge, I have assumed that I cannot also take on the role of reviewer of contest GANs. It would be seen as favoritism or conflict of interest. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Perhaps you could review it after the contest ends. The GAN backlog is annoying as usual, I have some articles waiting for review since early Spring... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Not so minor changes

Pretty sure you didn't mean to do this, so I reverted it. Favonian (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, browser/mouse slip. Thanks for reverting. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Carlos Gardel". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 14:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
2. Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
3. Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
4. Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
6. Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
7. Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
8. Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), Ealdgyth (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), The Bushranger (submissions) and 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

General Motors streetcar conspiracy, conclusion

(see the thread at User talk:Binksternet/Archive20#General Motors streetcar conspiracy)

Again, you are latching on to the who is saying what aspect rather than what is being said aspect. Bias is still bias even if the majority is in favor of it. You haven't convinced me that it is neutral, and I am sure I could contrive some example where only the nouns are switched around and you would agree there is bias. Additionally, you seem to think that I am with Cato and that automatically dismisses my points.

Having said that, I am no longer contesting this with you: You may leave the article as biased. What I will contest are any further allegations or insinuations that I am being paid by anyone to manipulate articles. If you wish to pursue that allegation, then we can proceed to arbitration. Otherwise, you can drop it altogether and I will wish you well in future endeavors. 71.174.73.50 (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Lucy Stone

I was using the usually-reliable website here. If you scroll way, way down. Clearly I was wrong. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio

Don't you think a half-page copyvio template is a little overblown for a half-sentence quotation? Quote marks would suffice, or a minor rewrite, whichever you prefer. hgilbert (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned from this single example that other casual copyright violations of yours have introduced similar problems to the article. I think the large ugly template is perfectly appropriate. There is never a time when two sentences of almost verbatim text should be pasted from a copyrighted article into Wikipedia without attribution or without a thorough paraphrasing. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. I don't believe that this happened, however. When two things match, how do you know which is the original? Compare the date of the copyrighted article and the Wikipedia article history.

Just shows: it's dangerous to jump to conclusions hgilbert (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If the Mentor magazine took its text from Wikipedia then it is a circular reference and should not be used. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I posted to this effect in the Talk page already. I did not originally recognize the text as being from the article, and was startled by the similarity when you pointed this out. hgilbert (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, this is way over the top. Please stop putting the bogus copyvio tag on the article. THE ARTICLE IS THE ORIGINAL. Are you having trouble understanding this? hgilbert (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a major issue to have a copyvio tag while things are getting resolved. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie makes good proof otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I made a mistake sorry; the text is slightly different in the original version on the wikipedia article. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

IRWOlfie makes goof-up whoops. Binkie doesn't bother to check and makes bigger goof-up.

See this version of the article months before the Mentor magazine article was published. A slightly less aggressive and unpleasant style would be appreciated: see WP:Good faith. The copyvio thing was way out of line, I'm sorry. I would appreciate an apology; you've repeatedly blamed me for something of which I'm completely innocent. (Have you bothered to look back at the record? Look at the above link before you reply.) hgilbert (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You are looking for an apology but you call me "Binkie"? Good luck with that. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly standard to remove material pending clarification in the discussion; the whole incident was quickly resolved. (We can't leave material in when the copyright status isn't fully clear during a discussion, even when assuming good faith) IRWolfie- (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! - Wiki Loves Monuments - San Francisco Events

Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco

Hi! As part of Wiki Loves Monuments, we're organizing two photo events in the San Francisco Bay Area and one in Yosemite National Park. We hope you can come out and participate! Feel free to contact User:Almonroth with questions or concerns.

There are three events planned:

• September 15, Saturday - A bike ride along San Francisco's waterfront
• September 22-23rd, Saturday-Sunday - Wiki Takes Yosemite
• September 29, Saturday - A sunset and harvest moon bridges, palace, boats and tower tour

We look forward to seeing you there!

You are receiving this message because you signed up on the SF Bay Area event listing, or have attended an event in the Bay Area. To remove yourself, please go here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Voting on Arbitration motions

Please don't do this if you are not on the Arbitration Committee. NW (Talk) 13:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You got it. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding, and my apologies if I came off as harsh in my initial statement. NW (Talk) 16:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

We're all adults here. I was perfectly fine with your initial post. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I just started

I added a few songs of 1963 as a familiar year for me. I'll post links from wikipedia as reference for later edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.56.94 (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not use www.godadida.com as a reference; it is not reliable per WP:Reliable sources. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You just need to remove the links. Why did you have to delete the tables and sentences that I provided sources from wikipedia? Did I do wrong citation format? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.56.94 (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What if many unreliable sources say the same thing? Would it become common knowledge and could we cite many different sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.56.94 (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, for Wikipedia's purposes many unreliable voices do not add up to one reliable one. It takes a newspaper reporter filing a story or something like that to make it reliable. Binksternet (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A moment of your time...

I've made a suggestion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion - given that we've got an experienced editor under the accusation it would be great to a) sensible opinion from other experienced editors and b) let this be a shining example of consensus-building on the COI board (we've had a good run recently...) Fayedizard (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John Hilliard (artist)

Yngvadottir (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
Message added 04:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Portola Road Race

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

How LBJ ran for VP

Your edit of how JFK picked LBJ for VP was fascinating. Thanks for adding it. --Javaweb (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

You are welcome! The latest Robert Caro volume on LBJ is very well written. I recommend it thoroughly. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Caro spent more time in this part of LBJ's life than did LBJ! I really need to read it in full. I took it out of the library but only read parts of it. --Javaweb (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

My local library classifies the book as a "Hot Pick" and will only let me check it out for a week. The missus and I both want to finish it but a week is too short. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello: very interesting detail added, thanks. I did a little ce work on it. I have read all the major bios on JFK, however, this book sounds like I definitely need to add it to my reading list. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your copyediting on LBJ. The book is an opus, for sure. Because of its breadth and depth, I should think Caro will be in the top rank of people who are considered for the Pulitzer. Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding recent revert

Hello. I'm sure that you realized that my intention wasn't malicious. I've actually been editing since mid-2008, had an account before, but no longer use it due to semi-retirement. My goal was to edit based on my experience with many ufologists, who will take language such as pseudoscience as evidence against anyone questioning their claims. The goal of my edit was to make the article conform better to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and to word it to where we can communicate that we are not refuting their claims entirely, but simply stating that there is not (yet) enough evidence to draw these conclusions. I consider myself an open-minded skeptic when it comes to ufology, and, the ultimate goal of people in my position is to only refute when we have evidence against its validity, but to ensure that our position will be reversed in the event that evidence changes.

I did request as kindly as possible that my edit be improved, as I was aware that it was not worded the best way in the world, but I hoped to at least start by communicating my point. (IP address changed since edit) 70.248.180.39 (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC), last modified 20:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your intention is good. The wording was awful. I like to have simple and intelligible sentences in the encyclopedia as much as possible. Here's what you added, in bold: "The show has been criticized for presenting disputed pseudoscience, or conclusions, while not necessarily false, drawn without full, objective, neutral evaluation, and failure to equally present opposing views." Your words were not based on any of the article text.

The lead section is a summary of article text, per the guideline at WP:LEAD. It is not the place to make new arguments. My primary complaint with the words you added was that they confused a very clear conclusion: that the show has been called pseudoscience. I want the reader to get the clearest possible impression. Secondarily, your words did not conform to the LEAD guideline. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Any ideas, then? There are obviously countless open-minded skeptics who share this feeling. 70.248.180.39 (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The way forward is to find reliable sources that convey your sentiments about the show. Summarize or quote the source(s). Binksternet (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Jazzschool

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Final Warning: Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney

You warned another editor about the article probation so I see no reason to give you to formally inform you. You are currently engaged in an edit war on this article. Bold insertion by Hcobb, revert 1 by Belchfire, restore 1 by Stillstanding, revert 2 by Belchfire, restore 2 by Hcobb, revert 3 by Wasted Time R, and then you've restored the material. I really don't think you need me to dig into policy here, just be careful in the future. I'd hate to have to topic ban or block anyone and I'd like to see everyone discussing before reverting.--v/r - TP 01:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, got it. I thought I was adding new material, writing "future" to describe Ryan as a running mate, which fully addressed the complaint of Wasted Time R who removed the text with the edit summary "Ryan wasn't his running mate at the time and it's not uncommon for running mates to disagree on issues - see Talk". I will be careful in the "future", so to speak. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand, the other reverts were from yesterday and were before some other changes so I'm not surprised it was missed. I'm not trying to be a dick either, just trying to be fair.--v/r - TP 01:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at Feezo's talk page.
Message added 09:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal, but true

Your comments, and my answers: "I know that you have been invited to refrain from responding to GabeMc but you have ignored the invitation." A: I was 'ordered' not to react to his posts (except for the mediation/poll page), which I did, but if you want diffs, you will see that he has ignored that ruling on other pages. It has been difficult for me to constantly refer to "a certain editor". He has had no qualms about referring to me as as "Andy". One rule for one, one rule for the other.

"I think of you as a loose cannon rather than a wild horse, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor." A: Read your comment below, and mine.

"I think your contributions on Wikipedia are fantastic except for the unbelievably poor choice of warring over lower versus upper case "the"." A: If I am called a 'fantastic' contributor, I don't see that my reasoning could be seen as being "unbelievably poor" when it comes to a question of grammar. Does that mean I'm a great driver, but I need a car? :)

"I respect the larger contributions [thanks] but not the battleground attitude you have assumed over this petty issue." A: Read "a certain editor's" attacks/comments. He has been bullying people in a mad fashion, but he cries "Wolf!" at every opportunity. His attacks are outrageous.

"If it's okay with you I will refer to you by your username instead of "Andreasedge" that you wrote above." A: "Andreasedge"?? It has always been "okay with" me to be called Andreasegde. I have NEVER used any other name. I have never thought of calling you "Binky".--andreasegde (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't like how GabeMc has been acting but my analysis of the dispute is that you are the cause of the problem, not him. If you did not unreasonably insist on upper case he would become reasonable. That's my take.

Regarding "Andreasedge" and Andreasegde", one of those looks like a typo. I have offered to use the real username instead of the typo.

I continue to think that your non-battlefield contributions to Wikipedia are good. I'm not going to try and comment about a driver and a car. I would say instead "drop the stick". Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Update for: WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The removal of Wikimapia links from Circus (building)

[cricobr] Hi,

On 09/07/2012, and apparently on the basis of a 1 day old discussion on Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Wikimapia (now at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Wikimapia), you removed all the Wikimapia links from the article Circus (building). A lot of work went into locating the linked places. I do not believe you have a case for the complete elimination of this information. A more Wikipedian action would have been to convert the links to coord template links. Furthermore, strangely, you didn't even attempt to discuss your rather radical proposed action on the article's Talk page.

During the days after you eliminated the hard-earned coordinate information embodied in the Wikimapia links the discussion was extensively extended through the participation of some 10 registered users. The conclusion of the section's starter, User:Sfan00 IMG, very close to the end of the current state of the discussion was:

" Owing to certain comments in threads elsewhere, it appears that no consensus exists. I'm therfore reverting most of my attempted cleanup efforts, If other people feel WikiMapia links are not sutiable, please convince the rest of WikiPedia first.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)"

I [cricobr] am the user who, over a long period of time, expanded and hopefully improved the information in the article Circus (building). The additional information included some 50 Wikimapia links to the various circuses and other locations. I used these links instead of the coord template because they take the reader instantly to the relevant coordinates on the satellite image, at an appropriate scale. If I were to used the coord template, and still wished that the reader would see the image I intended them to see, I would have to follow everyone of these links with an explanatory parenthesis of the form:

"(in order to visualise the intended image please choose a site which provides a satellite image, and zoom to the scale 1:xxxxxx [where xxxxxx would be substituted by an appropriate scale number for visualising the intended image])."

The most important information obtained through the Wikimapia links is not the Places or other information you may find superimposed on Wikimapia's satellite image display, but rather the location of an area on the surface of the globe, as referenced by its Lat/Long coordinates and display scale, which is embodied in the link code. If there are Wikimapia Places with names and information at the location, each reader will be free to judge the validity of that information for themselves. That information is not what I am pointing at. The purpose of the Wikimapia links is to take the reader rapidly to a very specific area on the surface of the globe. So long as the satellite image display remains available on Wikimapia the links will always do what I intend them to do, regardless of whatever else Wikimapia users may do at that location.

I intend to undo your action before new edits accumulating on top of your edit make reversion excessively complicated. The coordinate information cannot be lost. As a last resort it must be preserved by being converted to coord templates. However, I believe that would seriously degrade the readers experience in comparison to using the Wikipedia links.

Cricobr (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert, restoring the Wikimapia original research. I don't have a horse in that race. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of the Spanish colonial campaigns template

I noticed that you've been reverting recent edits which removed the {{Spanish colonial campaigns}} template from some articles (e.g., [1], [2]). I also noticed that some of the articles where you have reinserted the template are not listed therein. The template doesn't seem to have any documentation giving guidance regarding its usage but, without looking closely at this, my guess is that it is intended to be inserted in articles describing campaigns in which Spain sought to establish colonies. The two articles I've exampled would not meet that criterion. I suggest that you take a second look at this. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look at it when I have time. My RL world is about to get much busier for six days. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

HarveyCarter?

You sent me a message saying that i was suspected of sockpuppetry and referenced one 'HarveyCarter'. I'm not sure if i'm accused of being his sock puppet or using him as one but i can assure you that these allegations are false.

However, i am wondering what actions of mine and/or his have lead you to this conclusion. I have read the linked evidence report, yet nothing in said report references me in any way. In fact, the page hasn't been updated in over a month. I'm not 100% sure of the rules on the subject but if it's allowed could you please enlighten me?

Thank you 94.193.234.10 (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

HarveyCarter is a banned editor who shows up now and then as a 94.x IP address, posting from various places in the south-east of England. He is interested in the same types of articles that you have edited. If you are someone else I apologize. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Balikpapan 1942

I do not understand your revert of my edit of 26 Sept 2012 of "Battle of Balikpapan (1942)" nor your vandalism flag. Source was provided both for the edit and to clarify the conjecture of greater success pending solution of Mark 15 torpedo problem, an issue that you inserted into the article at some time during the last year. Do you have some particular editorial bias against calling the Battle of Balikpapan a "success" for the United States Navy? Mike Diehl (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not seeing the edit you are describing. Your most recent edit to that page, this removal of Roscoe, does not match your above description. By your article edits it looks like you think Roscoe is not relevant, but you say above that he is. I don't get it. I will continue to respond to your editing actions rather than to your confusing talk. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not seeing it either. I see 4 edits and reverts attributed to me on 24 September, prior to a 36 hr suspension vis "edit warring." I don't see the edit that I made September 26, that was immediately again reverted. Allegedly by you at the time. But now there's not even a record of it in the History for that article. I cannot explain what is going on. It is as though my edit and a subsequent reversion of that edit were deleted entire from the article History. Something truly wacky seems to have happened with the edits and the edit history. I'm walking away from it. It's not worth my time sorting out what happened. Mike Diehl (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

There really isn't a way for edits to be wiped from the history page. I'm an admin, and I can't even do that. The best I can do is make it so that you can't see the content of an edit, but it will still show up in the history page. More likely than not, the edit was never made (sometimes browser or server errors can cause strange glitches like this). I know that the edit warring has gotten you two off on the wrong foot, but I hope you can work it out because it seems like the misunderstanding here is probably pretty minor. Mike, why don't you make your desired edit to the article, and then we can continue discussing it here or on the article talk page. Binksternet, if you can delay reverting his edit until there has been a minimum of discussion about it, that would be helpful. Thanks. -Scottywong| comment _ 15:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, while I know this was just a simple misunderstanding, in the future you might want to take WP:BITE into consideration in these types of circumstances. Thanks again for being cooperative. -Scottywong| talk _ 16:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'll keep it in mind. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Voice of America

I see you seem to be the gatekeeper for the VOA page, so I'll appeal to you. The VOA article is so outdated it's pathetic. I've worked there for almost 30 years and I've seen a lot of history. I'd love to correct & add to the page myself, but I'm just an eyewitness & Wiki's rules would exclude my first-hand testimony (without published sources). (By the way, most of the article's reference links lead to the same generic "today's news" page.) Got any advice, suggestions? I hate to see so much outdated, missing, and just plain wrong information on the page that represents half my life.

BP McLeod — Preceding unsigned comment added by BPMcLeod (talk • contribs) 00:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

First find published sources that have some of the information you wish to add. Second, summarize what the sources say and cite the sources. Please avoid violating Wikipedia's rule enforcing no original research. In other words, do not write down what you know about VOA without referring to published facts. Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter

We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012

Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Maus FA

Thanks, but actually, Maus was archived by GrahamColm as it only got one "support". CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no! I thought it was moved forward. There was the issue of your last call for a second opinion on wording of the synopsis, but that was not such a fatal flaw. I had no idea the FAC was running out of time. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. I've got a nomination for another article up now that's seems to be generating a lot more interest. When it's over, I'll copyedit Maus again and re-nominate it. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Great work so far; good luck in the future. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

FTW ?

Free the whales ? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

maybe it means For The Win ? Redalert2fan (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the whales, particularly, but Redalert2fan has it right. Best! Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox flags

Hello. Please see WP:INFOBOXFLAG and Infobox Weapon documentation before re-adding further flags to Infobox Weapon. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see [3]. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I was reverting vandalism at AK-47, not editing Infobox Weapon. Binksternet (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but with some collateral damage, as you reverted my correction too. Anyway, now you know why I came here. Bye. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Aliens Debunked

Binksternet,

I'll agree that from what I can gather Chris White has some pretty crazy beliefs. He may be doing it for the wrong reasons, but his methods of debunking Ancient Aliens appear sound to me. I strongly recommend for you to watch the documentary (even just the first section) before discrediting his movie based only on his other beliefs. In reviews of the movie, several people do note that he does bring in some of his crazy ideas near the end, and that is unfortunate. Nonetheless, I found it to be pretty damning of ancient aliens. Not only that but the movie does a really good job of explaining how many of these ancient structures were likely to be made. It is interesting even if you don't watch ancient aliens (which I don't). My only purpose is adding this link is to inform people who are trying to look into whether ancient aliens is total BS (it seems obvious to me, but not to a lot of people). Even the Skeptic Society has reviewed the movie and I can't imagine they often support Chris White. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanwands (talk • contribs) 00:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I applaud the motive of telling the reader more about how Ancient Aliens is a TV show that puts forward completely wrong science. Chris White's debunking website and video must first be recognized by a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines before we can include it in the article. Hopefully it will get picked up soon by a magazine or newspaper. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the Skeptic Society not a reliable source? If not, what criteria does it not meet? Also, there is no actual claim being made by the statement I wrote. It merely says that a documentary was made which "attempts" to debunk the show. I don't think anyone can dispute that. I'm obviously new to the process so fill me in here.... Nathanwands (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was put off by the fact that Chris White, the producer of the film, wrote the Skeptic piece about the film, and that it was not a full-fledged criticism or review, just a promotional note of the "please look at my video and webpage" variety. I would have been fully convinced if a regular Skeptic writer reviewed the documentary and described its strengths and weaknesses. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

re We Can Do It! FA

Congratulations! — Cirt (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Great job getting the article We Can Do It! to Featured Article quality status, excellent work! The Wikipedia community values your contributions to this project. — Cirt (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on We Can Do It!. LittleMountain5 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Great work! LittleMountain5 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Oakland Skyline

I noticed you reverted my edit of the skyline photo. Your reason is the following: "Lake photo has more atmosphere"

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of atmosphere to an image that represents an economic juggernaut of 400,000 people. But I will not assume that my choice of images is better than yours. We both have our perspectives and ultimately a community should decide what image represents a city the size of Oakland.

What do you say we put this issue to a vote and let the Wikipedia community in the Bay Area decide which image should represent the City of Oakland.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks!

BDS2006 (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Great idea! Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. I added an "Oakland Skyline Image - Vote" section to the talk page of the Oakland, CA article. If you have other methods for gathering the opinions of the Wikipedia community, I'm open to ideas!

Regards,

BDS2006 (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! Ada Lovelace Day San Francisco

October 16 - Ada Lovelace Day Celebration - You are invited!

Come celebrate Ada Lovelace Day at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco on October 16! This event, hosted by the Ada Initiative, the Mozilla Foundation, and the Wikimedia Foundation. It'll be a meet up style event, though you are welcome to bring a laptop and edit about women in STEM if you wish. Come mix, mingle and celebrate the legacy of the world's first computer programmer. The event is October 16, 5:00 pm - 8:00 pm, everyone is welcome! You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite! I will be at a nearby hotel working Day 2 of a three-day gig, so I must miss the event. Sounds like fun, though! Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Francis Ford Coppola

My changes were reverted by you in 11 minutes while I was still typing on the talk page. You have already reverted twice. Kindly refrain from doing so the thrid time without sufficient discussion on the talk page. I am sure you are aware of WP:3RR. I have no personal interest in "attacking" Coppola who happens to be one of my favourite directors. I came across this piece of information while reading the article Contact (film) and I think it is important that such a controversy is mentioned, as is the case in almost all other biography articles. I agree with you on the "emphasis", which I interpret as the length of the section. I have temporarily copied the text from the said Contact article. Please feel free to cut it to size as appropriate for the current article. Please note that on reading carefully you will find that the text itself is NPOV. The "attack" is actually the words of Carl Sagan's widow and his atternoy, quoting and citing reliable sources. Please discuss any further disagreements on the talk page where I have explained why I feel it is important to mention this. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Latino music articles

I watchlisted any of the Latino music articles that have not been protected yet and were edited by the IP block hopper. You probably should do the same, and any editing by the blockhopper means another RPP.--1966batfan (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have them all watchlisted. Thanks for the help! Good to have many eyes on the problem. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Pink Sw.

PLease refrain from invoking "vandalism", per WP:NPA.--Galassi (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You wrote that the abominable book was well-researched and thoroughly cited. It is complete and utter garbage. Your contribution is harmful to Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"We Can Do It!"

File:We Can Do It by Post-It notes, crowdsourced.jpg

Sticky notes photo op

Congrats on the FA, Mr. Bink! Hope you and Mrs. Bink are wonderful. Matthew (WMF) 20:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Me and the missus are well. We're looking forward to a visit from a Slovenian friend later in October, and a trip to Tucson in late November.

A few days ago Mrs. Bink sent me this image of a crowd-sourced image she saw at a software engineering meetup, thinking perhaps it would be a good fit for the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a great photo! Let me know if you ever want to head out again on a photo shoot or if there are any particular photos you'd like me to get for articles you're working on. Best Matthew (WMF) 22:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You bet! Binksternet (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Irony?

"I support Tvoz's right to speak her mind to reporters without any repercussions here". What repercussions? So you support her right to make sexist comments that disparage 90% of Wikipedia editors and perhaps even Wikipedia itself but you do not support my right to refute them? Why? Anyway, Coren agrees, and that's more than enough for me. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I say don't hound her about her opinion. That's all. Leave it alone. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, how original Bink. "Shut-up, stop it, leave it be, cut-it-out". Well, that approach may have worked well in pre-school and junior-high, but it's not going to work well on adults in general, just my opinion of which I think, I am still entitled. Also, you seem to be following mea round just as much as you think I am following Tvoz around, so why is it any different? Because you are "right" and I am "wrong"? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you are pressing the Streisand effect button, compounding the problem that Tvoz spoke to the reporter about. The WSJ article brings more eyes "backstage", looking at conversations between Wikipedians, and I am certain you are overreacting in a fashion that falls, almost comically, into the exact pattern Tvoz spoke against. If you keep going this direction, Wikipedia suffers, Tvoz feels WP:hounded, and your record is sullied. That's how I see it. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but FTR, I stopped posting to Tvoz's page, and I was having a conversation with Qwyrxian‎, not following her around. Qwyrxian‎ replied to me, implying that he thought the conversation at his talk page was fine. Your baseless accusations are unfounded and potentially damaging to that reputation you seem to be so concerned about. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You were interrupting a conversation between Tvoz and Qwyrxian, which means you were following Tvoz around. This looked to me like WP:HOUNDing behavior. I am not making "baseless accusations". I am warning you against making further hounding-type edits, for everybody's benefit including yours. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. How does this apply to your following me around acting as a personal advisor/Wikipedia cop? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• For the sake of clarity, is this edit an example of someone following me around to conversations and wikihounding me, or is this perfectly not that for some reason I am unaware of? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw a great hole opening up underneath you and I thought you did not see it. I wanted to stop your movement along the hounding line so that you would not fall into the hole. I knew my interaction with you would be brief—just long enough to get your attention. Best wishes! Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate your concern Binksternet, but you are not offering any clarification. Jburlinson is following me around, first to Tvoz's page, now at Jimbo's page. All I want to know is if his/her behaviour is also wikihounding? Or is it only wikihounding when you think I am doing it? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You're a guy who is frequently aggressive in interactions. From that, I am guessing you have thick skin. I'm a guy with thick skin who likes to protect gals from excess aggression. I became concerned about Tvoz relative to your attention because of that. I figure you can handle Jburlinson. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that seems reasonably true overall. You're right, I can certainly handle Burlinson myself, and I wasn't looking for your protection from him, I was merely seeking a response to clarify if that's the kind of behaviour you were advising me to avoid. I do respect your chivalry greatly, and anyone who knows me in RL would concur. Maybe that's why I find this so frustrating, because in RL, I am a champion of women's rights, so to be accused of "an overabundance of testosterone" is insulting to me. If you are saying that men can abuse and wikihound other men but not women, then you are no longer about equality, its now more about protecting a gender you seem to deem in need of protection, a position some woman I know would find offensive.

IME, Tvoz is as hostile and aggresive as any male I have ever encountered here on Wikipedia or anywhere online, no question. I've been online for 25+ years. She also has a bit of a history with anti-male comments. Though, I had no idea until quite recently that she was female based on her interactions with me. As far as my own "aggression in interactions", I'll be working on that for sure, as one person making one step-toward improving this situation. I will say, at the risk of sounding like I'm making excuses, that my Wikipedia aggression was very much a learned behaviour, and that few if any could survive more than a few months editing Beatles related articles without learning to be somewhat forceful. That's not an excuse, but all the more reason for those of us who act aggresively to improve our behaviours ASAP. I see it all the time. New editors who start off quite nice and polite who quickly begin resorting to insults, snarky comments and one-up-personship.

Anyway, I'm babbling I know. I offer my sincere thanks for your efforts to dialogue this with me. Cheers! Also, if you think I pushed too hard at the mediation, well, you don't really know how hard I was pushed by them to have even taken that ridiculous dispute as far as I did. As it is, dozens of editors will not need to waste their precious time with this issue thanks to my efforts. So long-term, I am certain that my edits at the mediation will be a net positive, even if it takes a few months for that to become apparent. Also, no offense intended, but I brought up The Chicago Manual of Style long before you joined the mediation, just sayin'. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• On a more specific note, Tvoz made this comment to me yesterday, in reference to my need to make multiple edits for a single comment: "By the way - try using your sandbox to perfect your comments before posting them - it's a lot more considerate to other editors." True perhaps, but it is also completely ignoring the numerous possible biological causes for this, e.g. poor eyesight, dyslexia, dysgraphia, aphasia, etcetera. So, are we to believe that all women are more considerate and compassionate, and willing to work through potential biological difficulties of users? Or did Tvoz make a blatantly rude, and inconsiderate comment that is completely without gender distinction? And she made this inconsiderate and insulting remark in the same diff in which she chides me to be more considerate. Irony? Was Tvoz acting feminine here while I was acting aggressive and masculine? I think this insult is rude and inappropriate, the difference is I don't blame it on Tvoz's gender, I blame it on her lack of compassion and understanding for people with language difficulties. But aren't women supposed to be more considerate and nurturing? What gives? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Source

Adherents.com only lists the top 22 largest religions. Do u know a source listing the top 70 religions? Alternatively a source listing religions with 20,000 to 300,000 followers?

Not offhand, no. I'm working on some other research right now. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Jan Wnek

I know from your work on Whitehead & Coanda that you have an interest in flaky aviation claims...I'm hacking the above article about, but have a problem. Wnek's claims are based on oral hand-downs, but somebody has claimed to have found records. However, he has not allowed any examination of these. So far, so good. However, if I say thse claims are unsubstantiated, I'm making a statement that needs citation. Help!TheLongTone (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I will take a look. Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It' a real curiosity. The man who is alleged to have made the claims seems fairly notble, there is an article on him on Polish wp & he published a number of works on folk art &c. I don't think the Polish wp article mentions Wnek, altho the machine translation was very hard going & I may have missed something. There seem to be no print sources cited anywhere, & all I have found on the net are dubious fansites and references which are clear cut n' pastes from WP. Complete with the dreadful clunky prose of the original. I'd get depressed, but life is too short to wonder at the general credulousness and illiteracy of people who write webpages. I'd be tempted to dismiss the whole thing as a hoax, but there is a photo of a memorial to him on the Polish WP Wnek article. Enjoy,if you can be bothered....I can see you are a busy manTheLongTone (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm preparing comments for the article's talk page. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

How did you come up with all that?? I did a number of searches using various names & combinations, gave up looking on about the third page of each search...found zip.TheLongTone (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have always had good search mojo, and I am not certain why that is. Part of it may be the fact that I have been using Google for an extremely wide range of searches, for just about as long as they have been online. For other users of Google, they try and pick the displayed results using some algorithm to match that user's habits. I think they have given up on me in that regard—my search "pattern" does not fit into any of their algorithms. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

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, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:UniversalAudio-Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:UniversalAudio-Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Do me a favour?

Can you check this user for me? I noticed something about a banned editor, and this seems to be the same edit. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, suspicious behaviour. I will keep an eye on the user. Binksternet (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Eyes needed

Could use some eyes on Australian Christian Lobby, where, like with the article on the American Third Position Party, schills have been trying to portray the movement as they describe themselves. The movement is an over-the-top extreme-right "Christian" organization that is rabidly anti-gay to the point where even other conservative Christian groups in Australia have distanced themselves from it. Would appreciate it if you could add it to your watchlist. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Truman Committee

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

User:LegrisKe

In regard to List of nude photo scandals, can you please explain why you said that LegrisKe created the page in violation of their ban or block? It looks like the page was created in 2011 and LegrisKe wasn't blocked until 2012. If there is more to the story that I'm not getting, please let me know. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking LegrisKe was created by another account to evade a block but I have no proof. Binksternet (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

You have been awarded the seldom coveted Thumbs Up Award

Thumbs Up Award

for your recent post at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. I dissected the posting that you were responding to phrase by phrase, wrote impassioned responses to all of the component parts and then decided that you had said enough, that to get into an argument with the other editor would just reenforce that attitudes that he seems to hold. Thanks for doing it right. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Haha! What an appropriate award. Thank you! Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey-- I added this to ANI.

Independent complaint

I found my way here after a clearly inappropriate deletion by binksternet popped up on my watchlist. Deletion of a fact that, though uncited, is easy to cite. And now I find out that he's been warned before, and the behavior is now spilling out onto articles only minorly connected to the Iranian Coup. This isn't a content dispute, it's a a series of deletion of useful content.

I wasn't involved in the earlier discussions on this subject, but it is "common knowledge" that the government was democratically elected-- a reliable source off the top of my head would be the US President Obama who explicitly said "democratically-elected" in his speech.

I understand it is a very contentious subject, but to continue editing here, you should confine your dispute to a single page, and only if you can generate consensus should you edit in a controversial way.

Good luck to you. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Replied at ANI. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

dialogue

Well, I was hoping for dialogue, not discussion. I want to try to "understand" you, not try to argue with you. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Request

Could you slow down on the removal of the "democratically elected" phrase? I know I suggested it as a compromise, but it was just that, a suggestion. Please don't be part of an edit war, especially citing the RfC closure. As you probably know, the closure of any RfC is really an unneeded formality because the next day the consensus can change. Any way, I'm not sure of the best way forward from here. I know I suggested mediation on my talk page. Would you be willing to try that? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You can see by my editing history that I'm working on other articles, not reverting the phrase "democratically elected". There is nothing for me to "slow down". Rather, I am waiting for a conclusive determination on the issue.

Usually I am very friendly to mediation. In this case I would not be willing to accept mediation as such a solution is always about behavior, not content. This is a content disagreement. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You have edited 40 pages today removing democratically elected from all of them,are you denying this?Starting here I believe [4] and 40pages later you are here [5]. If you would like I can post links to the other 38 pages where you did the same thing that you seem to be denying above.Kabulbuddha (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"Today" is a funny concept when Wikipedia runs on the UTC but individuals do not. Last night at my house, I edited a long string of pages in the way that I thought most appropriate. This morning and today I see the trouble it caused and I am completely hands-off until there is a conclusive determination. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your recent contributions, I was just basing my observations on the number of new orange bars per second I get. But I think you may be confusing the mediation committee with the arbitration committee. Mediation should be about reaching a consensus compromise that is agreeable to all parties and not about user conduct. Mediation is always voluntary, the results are not binding, and you can walk away at any time. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You have been reconsidering your closure of the RfC but I think it was very apt. I am sorry that you put yourself into this position—it takes great fortitude to stand up for the evidence presented by reliable sources in the face of such strong user opinion otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In my years of dealing with Kurdo777 I have never seen him agree to mediation in a content dispute with me. I would be willing to participate, however. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A thanks

Hi Bink, I just want to say I'm sorry if I came off as "harsh". I try very hard to Asssume Good Faith, and my confidence in your good faith is reassured, seeing on talk that you've stepped back from those 40-some articles.  :)

I'm not going to get involved in the BIO dispute, but I just want to point out that democratically elected officials are often elected indirectly (As in the US Electoral College or the British Parliament). While constitutional monarchs do a ceremonial "appointment" ceremony, it's not as if Queen Elizabeth gets to pick who will become PM of the UK.

) I've enjoyed working with you and reaching consensus that the bulk of the articles should be left as-is. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not agreed that the 40+ articles should stay the way they were. I think the RfC will be upheld and the articles will once again need changing.

Saying that you have enjoyed working with me appears insincere in the face of you calling for the block button on me.

Just so you know, appointments in Iran are not elections. Queen Elizabeth was never the ruler of Iran; the UK is not Iran. In Iran before 1979, the king appointed the prime minister, period. See my sources at Talk:Mohammad Mosaddegh. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think we can continue to discuss your confusion on the appointed/elected dichotomy as applied specifically to the Mossaddegh and can discuss on that talk. But this isn't a dispute to have in 40 different places, and seeing you indicate cooperation on that point to Nathan above is what I needed to hear. And it's not insincere-- I said your earlier 40-page edits were block-worthy, and I still think they were. But I don't believe in punitive blocking. You've said you've stopped reverting, so I can say I would no longer suggest blocking you. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

My enjoyment of this discussion is greatly reduced if my considered appreciation of a fact is termed "confusion" by you. Moving forward, I don't see any benefit in you and I hashing it out separately here on my talk page. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Pls be careful

Pls take your time when editing (preview perhaps) as blanking is not good!!Moxy (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't intend to do this, but I just wanted let you know so that you can do what you really intended. :). Cresix (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Amp71. I noticed that you recently removed some content from The Beatles without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Not sure if it was intentional or not, but looks like a big chunk of stuff deleted from there. Amp71 (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

My best guess is that the article failed to completely load into the edit window, a failure I did not see. Thanks for correcting the problem. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No harm done obviously. You couldn't have picked a better article to make such a goof: thousands upon thousands of eyes on it every hour, as evidenced by all the messages you got. Cresix (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ashkenaz (Berkeley)

Started that article tonight :) SarahStierch (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic! Binksternet (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Madonna facts =

Who died and made you the decider of what is important enough to NOT censor? It's a part of her history. I don't see how just because it's not part of daily life conversations forbids us to mention it on her page. I find this ridiculous that you have to delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.48.228 (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a biography of Madonna's life and career, but only a summary of the main facts. Smaller facts of the sort that you wish to insert—that Madonna auditioned for a part and did not make it—are not part of the main facts. None of the major biography books mentions it, and they mention details we don't include. That makes me think it is much less important.

In an encyclopedia article the information presented to the reader should be essential. In many cases, less is more; addition by subtraction. I think the article is better suited to our readership if it can be trimmed of lesser facts. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)