User talk:Binksternet/Archive23

Surrender of Japan‎

This looks like it's becoming tedious. Do you think it is worth getting the page protected? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the protection admins would not act on several instances of vandalism per month. They usually protect an article if there is a flurry of vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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) 11:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Catholicism portal page

Hello, you recently undid all of the changes I made to the Homosexuality in Roman Catholicism page, which in general does not seem neutral. I added details which added accuracy and reduced bias, such as the fact that one of the Roman Catholic priests arguing against the Church's teaching is, himself, a gay person. That's a pretty important factual detail, don't you think?

Admittedly I am new to Wikipedia, and some of the changes may have been unwarranted but what of the change above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68kgamer (talk • contribs)

The website datinggod.org is a blog. It fails the test of reliability, and thus it cannot be used to back a controversial assertion such as a living person saying he is gay. See the guidelines at WP:RS and WP:BLP.

More than that, your wording assumes that being gay is bad: "aberrant sexual practices", "the many documented risks of homosexual behavior", and "its objective depravity". Wikipedia is not here to tell the reader that homosexuality is bad.

You interpret the Church position in this comment: "The Church's condemnation of other sexual sins, such as fornication, can offer some perspective about the Church's views on the human person, freedom from sin, and why the constraints and laws of the Church regarding sexuality are beneficial to human flourishing." An editor offering his own interpretation is not allowed per WP:NOR. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the section title is DEFENSE OF THE OFFICIAL CHURCH TEACHING, which is that homosexuality is bad. Please explain why this is not allowed in a section which exists to elaborate on the Church's position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68kgamer (talk • contribs) 21:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ketchup and spam

My discovery a few days ago: Derek Ridgers. Ugh. My discovery last night: Danny Flynn (printer). Ugh.

To the latter, a later edit by you: "Add COI tag for close involvement by bio subject."

They're both by this person and they both make lavish mention of the odd string "Ketchum Pleon". According to Middlesex University, "Ketchum Pleon" (a new name to me) is "a leading public relations consultancy and part of global public relations agency Ketchum". Or in plain English, an outfit that's in the spam business. I'd thought that PR people could at least string sentences together convincingly, but I suppose they have to find use for teenage interns.

But some of the above is mere guesswork. Just what is the "close involvement by bio subject"? Please divulge on Talk:Danny Flynn (printer). Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It's simple: Affable Familiar uploaded images of Flynn and his art that could only be from Flynn. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Incidentally, after I'd deleted the blatantly deleteworthy from the bloated article on Ridgers and done a bit of reading, I found that he eminently deserves a decent article. (Which reminded me of this matter.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK

Hey Bink, perhaps you already noticed, but I finally created Miss Calypso, and another user nominated it for DKY. Just thought you'd like to know. Hope all is well with you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw you working on the article in your userspace but I missed seeing it go 'live'. Congratulations! I will look at it when I get a chance. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for expanding the lead; I meant to but ran out of time, and then I forgot. Never turn old, please. ;) I made some corrections; Angelou actually doesn't even mention her singing career in Caged Bird, since it's about her childhood. She talks about it in Heart of a Woman, so I made changes in the lead to reflect that. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work! Thanks for the correction.

I would not say I'm old, but I have five grandchildren. :)

Best - Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Woah, you just outed yourself! One of the things I love most about aging is that now I can use it as an excuse for all kinds of things. ;) You should know that this article and Maya Angelou will go on the main page on her 85th birthday. I'd like to have the FT about Angelou be ready by then, but I'm not sure it's gonna happen. The last thing that needs to happen before then is List of honors received by Maya Angelou becoming a FL. Its first nom failed due to lack of support, so would you mind going over there [1] and seeing what you think? I'd appreciate it, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Five questions about your non-mop status

Why are you not an admin? Do you not want to be? Do you think there will be enough editors with whom you disagree to overset an Rfa? Are you waiting for someone to nom you? If the last, may I offer myself as someone who would nominate you? KillerChihuahua 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for offering. I have considered trying the RfA process but I have hesitated because it looks like a meat grinder. If I threw my hat in the ring I would expect vocal opposition from those whose behavior I have questioned. My style of interaction has always been vigorous whether I am helping to build an article or whether I am arguing a point. I expect the vigor will have provided some editors with cause to oppose my having extra responsibilities. I honestly do not know whether these !voters would "overset" a confirmation decision.

On the other hand, my strengths are: 1) extensive experience in building the encyclopedia, 2) a real-life career which allows quite a bit of time online, and 3) my Wikipedia maturity. When I started in 2007 I came out swinging—too combative by half—but I have greatly mellowed since then. It's no longer such an affront to me to see the "wrong version" of an article.

Regarding mop duties, I am most interested in helping with SPI, AIV and BLP issues. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

So.... if nominated, will you put yourself in the meatgrinder accept? KillerChihuahua 17:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) "You would make a excellent admin, Binksternet", MrX said stalkingly. The puppy is spot on. We need more people who are seasoned content creators and who exhibit sound judgement, which you consistently do. You're even-keeled, rational, intelligent, patient and decisive; all qualities that would constitute an effective admin and help keep that mop moving.

True, RfA is a meat grinder (and a blender, a juicer and a garlic press) and it's too-often trolled by people looking to even a score, but I still think you would have an excellent chance there. I would like to nudge you in that direction and would be honored to nominate or co-nominate you, should you consider standing for adminship. - MrX 17:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I would value your participation as co-nom. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I am so stealing that verbiage when I nom - "Binksternet is a seasoned content creator who consistently exhibits sound judgement. He is even-keeled, rational, intelligent, patient and decisive; all qualities that would constitute an effective administrator." (You stalk, I steal. It's the Wiki Way!) KillerChihuahua 17:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose an RfA  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that, LGR. A pleasant surprise! Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

So... Binksternet, tell us when you're ready. X, I'm thinking of one statement, written by both of us, and signed by both of us, rather than each of us writing a separate statement (mainly because after your thorough statement, all that will be left for me to say is "But it was my idea). :-D what say you? KillerChihuahua 17:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at my work schedule I see that I will have a comfortable stretch of time free for fielding questions starting March 13. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sound like a plan to me. If you want to start one in a sandbox, we can get this show on the road. BTW, it was really my idea; I just didn't have courage to say it out loud. Lions and tigers and bears and such... - MrX 17:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

An idea unvoiced has the same effect as an idea unborn. I think it would be best to follow the standard procedure to create the nom on the 13th; I have done a mockup on my sandbox but I don't think it would be wise to move it. You can write your co-nom (now that I've stolen your verbiage for the nom) on that page and tweak it if you like, then on the 13th after I post the nom you can paste and sign on the real deal. I think that will make for a less confusing history than to move from my sandbox. I'm open to doing it though, if others think moving is best. KillerChihuahua 18:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no need to move, when copy-paste will suffice. - MrX 19:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Binksternet, you may wish to opt in to X's count by month by creating User:Binksternet/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. KillerChihuahua 18:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I will opt in. It may interest you to know that SilkTork asked me a year ago why I was not a mop-pusher. I told him I thought my block log was still too fresh to say 'yes'. SilkTork is a checkuser and a member of ArbCom, so his opinion counted a lot to me. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. KillerChihuahua 18:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I rarely look at RfAs. This is an official request that someone notify me when the RfA has started. This will not be canvassing as I've requested it. This is a great idea and you'll be a good addition to our numbers. I hope it's relatively painless. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I will certainly send you a note. Another method is to watchlist the following red link, which you can do without even creating it: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Binksternet. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Encouraging that the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Binksternet already has six watchers although it doesnt exist yet! MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Binksternet, I encourage you to explore adminship. Checking your block log, I see you have blocks as recently as 2011. Since blocks create an opportunity for comment in any RfA, consider opening up an WP:Editor review. This allows you to explore (and develop replies to) possible objections before any RfA goes live. Evidence that you are willing to listen to feedback should also improve your credentials. Admittedly, taking time for such a review could wind up postponing the eventual date of your RfA. If you've been in any past kerfuffles, acknowledgment of these episodes should work in your favor. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That is an intriguing option. It looks like I could use the editor review process and thus take more time to develop my responses to pointed questions about past actions. Or I could develop those same responses at the RfA itself. I wish I could tell in advance how beneficial the ER would be—whether it would be needed to boost my ratio of 'yes' versus 'no' !votes at the RfA. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Although I have had some difficult encounters with you in the past, I will be happy to con-nom you for RfA :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Your viewpoint will be very valuable to me, coming as it does from someone who has seen me argue strongly for higher quality on a handful of articles about pop songs. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The way we talked there ban then showed me that you can confront controversial and stressful situations camlmy and patiently, just as I do, and that is a great quality admins should have. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• I seem to remember sending you a private message some time back, encouraging you to pursue adminship. You would have my support. --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Your support means a lot to me. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Part about the decline of Detroit almost suppressed again

Hello, I am a Belgian citizen not very active on Wikipedia. A few months ago, I noticed that the article about Detroit was totally biased. You were one of the people changing this. An user tried to makes changes impossible (constantly reverting) and was warned. He did it again and the part about the decline of Detroit is again almost invisible. This user also suppressed the warning on his own page. I do not have enough time and knowledge to change this but (as somebody wrote) this article undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. I hope you can do something. DidierC (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you are saying. Thomas Paine1776 performed this reversion some 90 minutes after I reverted him. I missed it in the ensuing edits by others.

I think it is time for me to start a "request for comment" on Thomas Paine1776 to examine his behavior. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sorry to be back but this user Thomas Paine1776 is still eliminating all comments or changes he doesn't want. The talk page of Detroit is empty again. Your comments on his page were also suppressed. He also managed to suppress older warnings.

But the worst thing is that the page about Detroit is again biased (a little bit less than before but I am almst sure it will be worst again soon). For me, as an admirer of Wikipedia, it is really a pity to see that apparently one user can make such a POV on an important article and that nobody seems to be able to stop this. DidierC (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that guy is harmful in his opposition to the hard truth of Detroit. For instance, he recently changed a header from "Decline" to "Decline and revitalization" even though the city is in such bad straits that just recently they were taken in hand by an unelected city manager rather than the ineffective leaders that were elected. The city has no money and a dire prospect, but Thomas Paine1776 cannot stop playing booster. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar! I'm happy to have been of help on "The Awful German Language" article. EnglishTea4me (talk)05:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The barnstar is for that and for all the other fine English work you have accomplished for Wikipedia! I'm glad you crossed my path, editing an article on my watchlist. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit in Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's article

I understand your concern about WP:COATRACK. However, the title of the section includes causes of his overthrow and there is strong evidence(check details on the talk page) Black Friday was a major turning point in his overthrow of power. If you can, please help modify the text such that it also addresses your concern. --Kazemita1 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The text should be modified to trace Pahlavi's direct actions or his influence in the Black Friday massacre. I am no expert on Black Friday but I can certainly see when text does not refer to Pahlavi in the Pahlavi biography. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Note

This source you mentioned [2] is actually a non-compliant mirror of History of Waldorf schools. Hgilbert wrote History of Waldorf schools, so it appears he cited an article, which plagiarizes Hgilbert's own work. I don't know why he didn't recognise his own words. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Also with respect to point 10, I think the diff you meant was [3] with respect to the watering down. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the admins might ask you to hat some of the text if you make it any larger. They like people being succinct, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the help. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Your RfA

Glad to be the first of what I suspect will be quite a few supporters.

Good luck! Kurtis ^(talk) 04:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Kurtis! Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• By chance I just noticed the RfA. Good luck, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hey, thanks for the good thoughts. Best — Binksternet (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Questions about editing

Why did you undo my edit on West High School(Utah)? It was a legitimate piece of information. I would like an explination please. Cjohn0821 (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjohn0821 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Investigating your question, it looks like I reverted the additions of IP 71.195.232.147 in this edit last August. The IP added a handful of names to the high school article, names of prominent alumni. Three of the names were redlinks: Christopher Bleak, Joseph Fyans and Rob Hansen. These men have no Wikipedia article written about them, so their notability is not established. The IP added "John Bingham, professor at Brigham Young University", but the Bingham in the link is John Armor Bingham, a congressman far too old to have attended this high school. The IP added "Michael Kennedy, Chief of Staff, Senator Orrin Hatch, but the Michael Kennedy page in the link is merely a list of many different Michael Kennedy's, what Wikipedia calls a disambiguation page. None of those guys is Orrin Hatch's chief of staff. So that means all five of the names added were men without Wikipedia articles written about them. After the IP restored the names I removed them again. When the IP restored them a third time, User:Tgeairn removed them, and also removed four other names which did not have any mention of West High School in their biography articles.

You should consider writing articles about these people if you can find enough published sources to satisfy the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Good luck! Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance and help. For future contributions, can I ask advice? I am in a creative writing class now and I would love all the writing advice I can get. Cjohn0821 (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjohn0821 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... It's hard for me to say anything helpful without first seeing an example of your work and then spending time discussing it. Your teacher will be the best resource, I should think, since I'm a working sound engineer. Otherwise, try searching for online creative writing classes, or go the library and check out a book on creative writing—I bet they would have something appropriate. Ask the librarian for advice. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for your help anyhow. Cjohn0821 (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjohn0821 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Small flower

I have just been through hundreds of edits of yours doing updates for the Schools Wikipedia and I thought I should acknowledge that by and large you do a pretty good job. --BozMo talk 12:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for your fixes to Michelle Shocked .. it's been a weird day. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Just trying to be fair, to follow BLP. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeming promotional links

Hello. As you noted, User:JodieSharp added a promotional link to an article which you reverted out and left a message on the editor's talk page ( User talk:JodieSharp ). It turns out this editor (whose only WP contributions have been promotional in the last two days) added the promotional links to many articles. Cf. Special:Contributions/JodieSharp. I reverted them out -- pending any further viable explanation or disputation. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep an eye peeled. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Best. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Nominations Request For Comment

A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here. At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

Your RfA

Hi Binksternet. I'm sorry to report that I have closed your request for adminship as unsuccessful. You earned the support of many editors, but unfortunately there did not appear to be sufficient consensus for adminship at this time. You are obviously a very talented Wikipedian, and I hope you will keep up the good work; I would not at all be surprised to see a subsequent request for adminship close with overwhelming support. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, 28bytes (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for examining the various votes and concluding as you have done. It's not an easy job! Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Bink, you made a very admirable run at it. I wish the outcome were different, but I know you will transform it into a positive learning experience and continue your legacy of working to build a great encyclopedia. Be well. - MrX 04:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for backing me! It feels good to have support for the sometimes tough job that is Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I also wish to salute you for running the Rfa gauntlet; I thank you for standing for adminship. You had a respectable showing. I notice a number of your oppose !votes stated that they would be inclined to support a future Rfa from you pending no additional blocks, etc. While you obviously must be the judge of that decision, I would be pleased to support you down the road should you try again! Best wishes always, Jusdafax 04:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, Bink, I'm sorry I put you through that. Do use the oppose rationales as lessons learned; don't edit war, be polite, and don't get blocked - and think about trying again in a year or so. Thanks for running; I think you'd have made a good admin, but clearly others wish to see you block free for longer. I think the problems you face are due to your passion; I think if you continue to tame that passion and channel it into less combative actions, you will become a better editor and Wikipedian. That passion is what inspired me to nom you; don't lose it; just make sure it is properly channeled. I know Rfa is a stress-fest. You handled it very well. I am sorry the outcome was not as we hoped. KillerChihuahua 06:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I am proud to have given you my support. You are a great user, and having 84 supports is a great achievement, even when you had 45 or so opposes. I am sure that, with a little bit of more time, you will be ready to pass. Just remember the most important thing: don't change for a bit. The way you edit, and the way you protect your beliefs, is what makes you truly special, and changing your behaviour for a couple of buttons is not worth it. We need you just as you are :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• RfA is a royal pain, but you handled it well, better than the most. I am confident you will be an admin soon enough because your motives are 100% in line with what is best for Wikipedia as a whole. Channeling the passion into a neutral and calming comment is not always easy but it is important, as people often take bluntness out of context when you have the bit, and the stakes are so much higher. Sometimes they do it on purpose, unfortunately. I'm sorry that I had to ride the fence this time, but RfA demands honesty, both the good and the bad. I would expect a support from me next time around, as I know you are capable of making the journey. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 06:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• If you are frustrated now, I don't blame you. An RfA can sure beat the crap out of you. You are an admirable editor, but you have a few flaws in your editing patterns that really brought you down. I will most certainly support you down the road if you can iron out those flaws that shadow over your positive contributions. Best of wishes, Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 06:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry it didn't turn out better, but I was impressed by the way you handled yourself and stuck it out to the end. I do think you'd make a good admin, and I hope you'll have more success with a future run. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry it didn't work out. I supported you, you answered questions well, and kept a cool head. Hopefully most of the "opposes" are "not just now" rather than "not ever". I reckon this time next year you'll be able to come back and easily do a successful RfA. An admin position anywhere can be a particularly thankless task, so anyone stepping up to the mantle should be commended for that. In the meantime - keep up with the content, to quote an article you almost single handedly took from nothing to TFA, you can do it! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I was horrified at the drama on the RFA page. You answers to the questions were excellent, and if you can move on some of the less unreasonable comments, I'd be likely to support in a year or so. --Stfg (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Good luck next time! I concur with the others who said you are liable to get a lot more support next time, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Best luck for next time. You'd make a good admin, and I hope that you try again in six months or so. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• You'll have no difficulty next time around. Illegitimi non carborundum. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'm disappointed by the outcome, but grateful to you for going through the process -- and sticking it out to the end. I hope that you will try again -- and that Fox News doesn't announce your next RfA to its TV audience. --Orlady (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Time for a rich, dark drink!

• Commending Killer and MrX for nominating you; kudos also to you for submitting to the snarkfest with such good grace. I hope next time there will be no more carping about the stale block log, or censorious speculation about "personality" and "temperament" etc.; and no more sneers directed at the nominators, such as ' responding to every "oppose" !vote is a weird practice '—weirdly targeting a nom who responded at just two out of the total of 46. Writegeist (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody who put forward thoughtful and considered support and oppose votes. I will keep doing what I do on Wikipedia, and we will see what the future holds. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm both sides of the fence here. Your passion has served us well against POV pushers, but you're also bright enough to wield the mop. Either role would suit you.--v/r - TP 17:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'd agree with both of TP's observations above but disagree in that I think both roles are possible. It is just a question of being clear of one's boundaries/roles in different editing areas, and I am sure that you are experienced and smart enough to know that!! Your handling of the RFA was a clear sign that you would handle editing and being an administrator very well. Good luck next time- I do hope you try Slp1 (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• An RfA is extremely stressful (I hated every minute of mine, and am still recovering over a month later :-)), and I hope you're justifiably proud of how you handled yours; you have my support next time too. All the best, Miniapolis 21:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• I would like to mention that you are on a course that clearly shows your dedication to improving Wikipedia and that you have changed dramatically over the last several months to a year. I would have absolutely no problem supporting you in your next RFA should you continue along the lines you have.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Sadly I missed it all, but I seriously hope that you run again. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

George S. Patton

Problem with enemy casualty figures according to Third Army After Action Reports is this: whereas figures on POWs are accurate and confirmed by Fuller, figures on enemy soldiers killed and wounded are impossible. Between June 1941 and December 1944, Germany lost 202,000 killed fighting the Americans and British in North Africa, Italy and north-west Europe together (Hastings). With deaths in 1945 the number of German fatalities in these theaters increased by another 100,000 at maximum. It cannot be that almost half of all German soldiers who fell fighting the Western Allies (144,500 out of 300,000) were killed by Third US Army alone. If so, then what was the combat performance of all other Allied troops? Fuller's figures (47,500 of the enemy killed, 115,700 wounded by Third US Army) are more realistic, and thus should be mentioned lest the article contain obviously mistaken information. If information is too long for Patton's biography, then it's better to delete the whole paragraph and leave casualty records in the Third US Army article alone. Cortagravatas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If the sources, disagree, the matter should be dealt with at the Third Army page. It is not relevant to Patton as presented. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Binksternet. The level of detail you keep adding is of no value on the Patton page. As-is, it has very general information on the casualties figures. Those stats belong on the Third Army page, where I moved them. The analysis of the statistics can go there too, since the debate is around the conduct of the whole of the Third Army. Patton's page should have his role as leader, and only a little bit of info on casualties matters there. The rest, what you're adding, is trivia on an already full page. —Ed!^(talk) 18:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A source correcting inaccurate information (Fuller) is not mere trivia. It's not just a matter of sources disagreeing, the problem is that one source (Third Army After Action Reports, accepted by Wallace) obviously exaggerates except as concerns enemy POW's. Besides, reference to Fuller is now just one sentence and considerably shorter than last paragraph before one. There should be no problem with the current wording. Cortagravatas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I would favor expanding this info on the Third Army page and removing all info about casualties numbers on the Patton page. If there isn't a simple metric we can accurately include on Patton, I don't think it's worth the trouble. In the meantime, the info should be discussed at length at Third Army. —Ed!^(talk) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

To make it about Patton the man—Patton the general—it would have to stay focused on what Patton did personally to make sure his army got the job done. Comparisons could be made of casualty ratios, but total casualties are not so important to the biography.

Courtesy notification

An editor brought you up on my talk page. I just wanted to let you know in case your ears were burning.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think discussion about the topic should stay at the article page. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I tried. For some reason they just kept responding on my talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The Age of Spiritual Machines

Hello... I'm looking for someone to re-assess The Age of Spiritual Machines an article about a book by Ray Kurzweil. I put a bunch of work into the page in the last month or so, expanded it a lot. I found your name by looking through "related changes" for the book, I think you had edited an article on Gordon Moore and it looks like you are very experienced editor with diverse but sometimes techy interests. Anyway if you have time please take a look. Otherwise not a problem. Thanks. Silas Ropac (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Assess like on the talk page, rating the article for WikiProjects Books and Transhumanism? Or assess like a peer review? I can say that the Tarantula Nebula image should be linked to Kurzweil mentioning it in his book, otherwise it looks like somebody picked a space image out of a hat. The John Searle image should be smaller, for instance by way of the 'upright' parameter.

So if you want someone to assess for the WikiProjects, then someone from those projects is the best choice to do it. If you want a longer review like a peer review, then take the article to WP:PR and ping me to review it, at which point I will do a full-bore review. What is the long-term goal? GA? FA? Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I was just looking for an assess at this point. It is currently Start and I figure it is a C or B now. Long term I have not decided whether to do GA on any of the 4 Kurzweil book articles I've worked on, GA sounds hard! I did list this article for WikiProjectBooks and Transhumnism assessment about 2 weeks ago but I think I've burned them both out on Kurzweil since I did 4 of his books in quick succession, and the books are rather similar. So I was just reaching out for new blood, did not realize you had to find someone in the projects. So I will just be patient, thanks. I did pick the space image out of the wiki-commons hat. Kurzweil does talk about "big celestial forces" but I guess that is too tenuous? Maybe I could find a big crunch or slow expansion diagram, he specifically talks about those scenarios. I will make Mr. Searle smaller! Thanks for your help and rapid response. Silas Ropac (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

And I may do peer-review later once I make sure it is a decent B. So I will remember your kind offer!Silas Ropac (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Help me out, if you will. In which one of his books does Kurzweil say that the Tarantula Nebula is home to the transfinites? I vaguely remember the connection.

The article is certainly up to 'B' level, in my estimation. Any editor at all can assess the article and assign it a level, but that assessment should defer to one from the specific project. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There is exactly one google hit to "home of the transfinites" and it is a book The Loom of God but I can't make sense of the excerpt. It's not from Kurzweil that I know of, but certainly could be. Thanks for looking at the article and the assessment. I will have to think about peer-review. I should pick one of these 4 articles I worked on and get it to GA. Silas Ropac (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Frederick Douglass ref removal

Hi. I'm wondering why you removed the link I added. Is the link inappropriate, or is the way I describe it that's wrong? Since becoming a wikipedia editor, I've tried to improve the "Life as a slave" section of the article, in particular by keeping the link to the Amanda Barker birthplace pages fresh (the pages have disappeared from the web and been moved several times). Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the Barker links fresh at the Douglass bio and also at the Tuckahoe Creek article. That's a fine thing but it is not exactly relevant to the URL under discussion.

I had three concerns about the URL you added. It appeared to be self-published, but then so was the Barker website which I inserted back in April 2009, so that argument is less valid. The page is a landing page at which the reader must click again to get the Douglass bio. Finally, the interactive page needs the reader to install Microsoft Silverlight.

Do you think we could use a direct URL link, ugly as it may be? http://explorer.arcgis.com/?present=67f22c2675634e6e98d42d763bea02d2.

Perhaps this link can be used as an external link rather than a reference. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

On a closer look, I realize that this "interactive explorer" site is prominently linked to in the Amanda Barker page, so there's really no need to link to it from the Wikipedia article. Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

COI Bio

Hello Binksternet,

Having noticed the COI badge on this entry for Ken Schaffer, I wonder if you could explain the basis for this designation despite there being numerous references to credible publications. Thanks.

Kibotoo (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)kibotoo

The use of some published sources does not take away the fact that you, your other accounts, and all the changing IPs have added unpublished text to the article. For example, there is no source listed saying that the Schaffer-Vega Diversity System sold for $4400. Material such as this must be ferreted out and deleted by an uninvolved editor. You have made it a difficult job. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Zack Norman bio

Hi Binksternet, thank you for responding. I'll trim the article according to your recommendations and resubmit. When I do so, is there a way I can refer to your affirmation of notability? Thanks! Matzohboy (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Matzohboy (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone looking at that page will see my affirmation of notability. If you don't get any traction from editors there, I will put the article up myself. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

sockpuppet?

is this user the same sockpuppet as this one? I ask because I saw the SPI link here. Cheers - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The typography is the same between the two, in terms of spacing, caps and commas. The topics that the recent account is interested in are in the same pool as the original socker. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I have mentioned this section at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Youtubek; now they want more information.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

BP talk page addition and removal of content

You just added a comment and removed Beagel's comment.[4] Was that an accident? I was just about to add a support to his comment.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I did not intend to do that. Looks like Beagel fixed it. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Music of Argentina

Stop policing my edits to the Music of Argentina page. There are several other uncited sections. The Electronica section, as it is, is entirely uncited in the refererence section, so if you're really going apply your judicious editing standards then erase the whole section. Otherwise, back off. I'm not promoting anything - I'm adding a much-needed update to a section of this article. John Henry Dale 16:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC) John Henry Dale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhenrydale (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You have a point in that large chunks of unreferenced text should be removed. I will do that. Your "update" involved the promotion of a non-notable group of people and ZZK Records; a label that does not have a Wikipedia article. That is why I removed the text as being promotional. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've cited the sources for my edits now. Just because you don't know who the people involved with ZZK Records are, does not make them, as you so condescendingly described, "a non-notable group of people". Google ZZK Records. They're notable.If you remove my edits again I will report you for abuse. John Henry Dale 17:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC) John Henry Dale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhenrydale (talk • contribs) 17:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've initiated a dispute resolution based off of your abusive and overly-agressive policing of my good faith edits to the Music of Argentina page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Music_of_Argentina.23Electronic

John Henry Dale 19:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC) John Henry Dale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhenrydale (talk • contribs)

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 are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Music of_Argentina#Electronic".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Discussion Hello, there is currently a discussion at AN [5] about a disruptive IP editor with whom you have been involved.Jeppiz (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC) New Map/Montage First off thanks for the new map!! The other one wasn't as good. However please refrain from removing the montage. Most people are satisfied with it! Thanks--Pollack man34 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC) The very first image should define the topic. Put a montage somewhere else in the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC) The montage defines the article. A photograph of some sort should be used to define the topic with the map. I will meet you half way. I'll try and put the montage under the map in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollack man34 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC) A photo-montage is decoration, not definition. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC) AE request result Per this discussion at WP:AE, you are reminded of the importance of editing according to core policy on pages related to Waldorf education, broadly construed, and that failure to do so may result in discretionary sanctions being applied. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Removal of "Shared Parenting" Image from website The image was removed from the Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)Wikipedia site by Binksternet. The reason given by Binksternet was: 16:37, 30 March 2013‎ Binksternet (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,131 bytes) (-76)‎ . . (delete image with no good connection to topic). These comments by Binksternet are incorrect. The Shared Parenting Wikipedia site states that: Shared parenting has also been referred to as "collaborative parenting", "balanced parenting" or "equal shared parenting", and can also apply after the separation of adoptive or other non-biological parents. Therefore there is clearly a very good connection between the words "shared parenting" on the image and the "Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting). John Flanagan 31 March 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jef04 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC) I stand by my removal of your political party link from the "See also" section of dozens of articles, for two reasons. Your link was unrelated to the great majority of those articles as far as the article topic is concerned, though of course the topic may be important to the political party. Second, you spammed the link into dozens of articles to promote your extremely small political party, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC) WikiCup 2013 March newsletter We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April. Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare ( Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus ( Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John ( Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal. Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms. A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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) 22:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Removal of "Shared Parenting" Image from website Comment by Binksternet John Flanagan 31 March 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jef04 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC) I stand by my removal of your political party link from the "See also" section of dozens of articles, for two reasons. Your link was unrelated to the great majority of those articles as far as the article topic is concerned, though of course the topic may be important to the political party. Second, you spammed the link into dozens of articles to promote your extremely small political party, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Reply by John Flanagan, 3 April 2013: Your idea and my idea of what is spamming is obviously extremely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jef04 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC) You are talking about two different issues here: You "spammed" a link to your Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting) article into 50 or 60 different "See also" sections when it was not appropriate to but a few of them. You have inserted two different political inference images into your Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting) article such that the article become an extension of the party's activism rather than a neutral and factual account of the party. Again, I stand by my removal of the "See also" links and of the two non-neutral images. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar This star is worth $525,000 at your local S&L. Go cash it in, with my gratitude, and tell 'em I sent you. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Hahaha! Thank you very much. I will let my bank know about this windfall so they can properly adjust my account. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting) I hereby request the complete removal of this item from the Wikipedia web-site. It has been significantly edited by foreign editors with no idea about what they are writing about. Regards John Flanagan Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jef04 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC) You can nominate the article for deletion yourself. Copy the following template and put it at the top of the article: {{Template:Proposed deletion}} I don't agree with the proposed deletion so I will not do it for you. I don't think the deletion discussion will conclude as "delete". Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC) He's announced his intention to leave. Unfortunately it looks like a case of WP:PRAM. --Drm310 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC) I think he was upset by two things: the continual resistance various experienced editors gave him regarding his political activism on-wiki, and the appearance in 'his' article of accurate but very low voting results from elections. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Doubt Hi, Binksternet. Some time ago I wrote a FA titled Joaquim José Inácio, Viscount of Inhaúma. I was never very happy with the "Legacy" section. It's too short. There is series of books called "Os nossos almirantes" (Our Admirals) written by Henrique Boiteux. If I'm not mistaken, volume 5 (published in 1932)[6] has a chapter about Inhaúma. You'll find it under the name "Joaquim José Ignacio" (notice the extra "g" in Ignacio) or "Visconde de Inhaúma". I believe it begins on page 67[7]. There is also a following chapter that begins on page 135 titled "Centenário do Almirante Visconde de Inhaúma" (Centenary of Admiral Viscount of Inhaúma).[8] I wonder if you could take a look if the university library also has a copy of that book? I know I'm asking too much and I would be really grateful for your help. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC) I will look. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC) I have good news: the Historical and Geographical Institute of Rio Grande do Sul sent me digital copies of the journal I was looking for. You don't have to bother yourself with it any longer. However, I'd be glad if you could find the book I mentioned above. --Lecen (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Fantastic! I will look for the book. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Going against consensus Binksternet, I greatly appreciate the passion and dedication that you demonstrate in your editing. You clearly are a veteran Wikipedian and are constantly making useful contributions. That being said, your most recent edit at Maafa 21 clearly went against consensus, as I demonstrated in my most recent edits at the Maafa 21 talk page. I have no doubt that you desire consensus, and of course, you are well aware of the challenges we have faced at this article in trying to achieve it. (I've had my own struggles, as you have pointed out.) In turn, please be more careful in the future not to go against consensus in your edits as well. Thanks for your understanding. God bless! -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC) No, your change to the article went beyond consensus. Binksternet (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC) No, my edit was precisely what I had suggested and what Badmintonhist and Rosetta had supported. Even Roscelese seemed to be fine with the suggestion; she certainly didn't argue against it, which she is happy to do when she does disagree. (All this has been demonstrated on the Talk page.) You were given days to express disagreement but did not until after I had made the edit and you had reverted it. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Opinion Sought Hi - You and I have edited many of the same pages, and so I ask for your opinion. Yesterday's featured article on Thomas Kinkaid gives Kinkaid the credit for the victory at Surigao Strait, as the commander. My thought is that, of course, the credit goes to Oldendorf, and Kinkaid was one level removed. I made a small edit that got reverted by Hawkeye7, an esteemed author. If you have an interest, would you add to the discussion on my talk page? Thank you. JMOprof (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Got it! Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Thank you. ...best JMOprof (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Common sense Thanks for this edit. I tried to make the point that that line was completely unnecessary, but only you understood it. 50.193.171.69 (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Great minds and all that! :-) Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Please undo your revert I restored longstanding sourced and verifiable content deleted by COI editor David Starr of the Adi Da cult.[9] You reverted my restoration. Someone undid my restoration of longstanding sourced and verifiable content yesterday, on the erroneous claim that all sources must be on the internet. I replied and gave that editor a chance to respond over night if he had a response. He did not. So I restored the longstanding content. (Additionally, BLP only applies to living persons.) Could you please undo your revert? 64.134.235.59 (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC) You used primary source documents to make sweeping statements describing terribly unethical behavior of Lesser's son. Lesser is still alive and so his dead son should not be described as unethical without very good WP:Secondary sources. Do not use real estate deeds, death certificates, or court documents to paint the guy black. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Both of those questions have the same answer: I think 2014 would be the right time to freely allow Gibraltar DYKs. I think the wiki suffered a PR setback and that time will need to pass before we can ramp back up, or we will suffer further negative PR. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC) OK, thanks for your feedback. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC) could you please send me my edits back sorry I thought it was important — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewunthird (talk • contribs) 20:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC) No, this is an encyclopedia. It is not your scratch pad for free association. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Talk:Madonna (entertainer) Inviting your opinion regarding Aicchik's continuous reversion and addition of a content which other users have vehemently opposed and Aichik him/herself has failed to provide relevancy and justification, except "its 4 years and she has to date" and calling you "ageist". —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Don't focus on the insults; they are unimportant and peripheral. The Madonna boyfriend bit has no traction on the Madonna talk page (consensus firmly against it) and thus cannot be repeatedly inserted into the article. Binksternet (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC) I appreciate your defense of the word "perceived" in the Men's rights movement article, I believe that this particular word was originally mine. However since my month's ban from the article has not expired I need to count on editors such as yourself to be there. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC) You are welcome. I don't like it when a writer begs the question, though I have occasionally found this flaw in my own writing. Binksternet (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Just got back, thanks for your attention. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC) World Trade Center World Trade Center, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Secular Islam Summit Hey, I saw that you got involved on the talk page today (thanks). As far as I understand, the edit war was not over the inclusion of Haddad's center for understanding, but over the relative amount of weight given to the positive and negative reactions to the summit. (Notice how one version has a paragraph of positive reaction followed by a paragraph of negative, while the other version has two paragraphs of negative reaction followed by a single paragraph of positive.) The mention of the center was probably an issue, but not the core issue that prompted the edit war, as far as I can tell. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, I saw that the order of paragraphs was changed, but I thought that was a trivial matter. Someone could argue that their preferred stance should be presented first for primacy, or last for lasting effect on the reader. To me the order is a superficial issue since the information is still presented in full. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC) My tone on Madonna edits Thanks for trying to help. You know how to diffuse a situation, some guys still don't;)--Aichik (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Even this comment of yours is an attack on "some guys" who are understood to be those who oppose your suggested changes. Your attitude on Wikipedia must rise to a higher level if you expect success in editing. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Every unpleasant situation in which you have been involved till date has always been diffused. So please, don't act. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC) This is not needed. Start a discussion at WP:RFCU. The intended word was probably "defused", anyway. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC) [Response to your first response] Well, if you read it literally, yes. But "some guys" can also be read as a saying. But I know what you're saying. I also want to restart the conversation on the boyfriend. Where do you suggest I do this? Here? Per Wikipedia rules, I could, I guess. Would appreciate your feedback.--Aichik (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I oppose trivial information such as about the boyfriend dancer who is not himself notable. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC) BLP/N discussions - 3 clear examples to start, more if needed [10] on Anderson Cooper 3 Feb 2007 [11] Little Boots Jun 2009 [12] Luje Evans Aug 2011 ... [13] Elena Kagan Need more examples? Unless the discussion of a person's sexuality is key per secondary sources regarding the person's notability per se, or is self-attributed, it does not belong per WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC) The Anderson Cooper bio now hosts his announcement that he is gay. So does the Luke Evans (actor) bio. In none of the four linked discussions did anybody refer to the part of BLP called WP:WELLKNOWN, so those discussions are not relevant to the one about Shep. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Anderson Cooper made a specific self-identification - but unless a person does such, WP:BLP tells us not to assign a sexual identification to the living person. Cheers -- ask at BLP/N if this is in any way unclear. Collect (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Unclear? The BLP page discusses self-identification only in relation to categories, not well-cited prose. The WP:BLPCAT section cannot be stretched to cover prose when it does not make any such distinction. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Notice of WP:AN discussion Hello Binksternet, this is notification of a WP:AN discussion regarding an editor you have dealt with. The thread is: WP:AN#Community ban for BLP-violating, sock-hopping conspiracy theorist from Hyogo, Japan. Appreciate your input, thanks! Zad68 18:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Notice Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC) [14]  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Files missing description details Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as: File:TuskegeeP40.jpg File:Electrovoice-constant-directivity-horn-1975.jpg File:Jazzschool logo.jpg are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers. If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided. If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Regarding the Tzvi Erez page Edits - I am close to the matter and have come across court docs showing charges were dropped. I also think, that Erez is an incredibly talented classical pianist, and many users are interested in his discography which you have elected to remove. Discography of artists is not a marketing / promo tool. It tells the world what albums an artist recorded and released over time. Please consider and reinstate. Thank you. LaurenIpsum (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC) La Jolla Woman's Club Hello - I was going to notify you about my creation of La Jolla Woman's Club, but I see that you (and Melanie) have already been in it! Let me know what you think. Dohn joe (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Two instances of the word "current" in one sentence, the first from the group's original name. Another word choice would be good for the second "current" to fix the clunkiness, or the phrasing can be juggled as a workaround. Good start! Perhaps I will get a chance to add some content some day. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Glad you like it. And a good style point as well - I'll get in there and take care of it. Dohn joe (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Turntablist Hello , my name is Grandmaster Disk ,, better know to the world as DJ.DISK ,, i'am the original creator of the word Turntablist. I tried to edit my own word but you took it down ,, i'de like ot know why ? I created this word when i was 11 years old , i'am 42 now and all of sudden people want to take credit for my hard work ! Please i want to make this correct , how can i do this ? , Disk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djdisk (talk • contribs) 00:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Get your story published in a book or magazine article or newspaper story. Wikipedia cannot be used to publish a never-before-published story, true or not. Even then, the going will be uphill. Your Invisibl Skratch Piklz colleague Qbert is credited with inventing the word, according to All music guide to electronica page 262, the section written by Sean Cooper, the book edited by Vladimir Bogdanov. Professor Tara Brabazon writes about turntablism in the book Popular Music: Topics, Trends & Trajectories, and she says that Grand Wizard Theodore invented scratching which was then popularized by Grandmaster Flash. She says the breakbeat was invented by Kool Herc. She says Qbert invented the crab and that you invented the orbit, so she knows who you are and how fundamental was your influence. But then she says that the term 'turntablism' was coined by DJ Babu of the Break Junkies. See pages 114 and 115. The book Hip-Hop Turntablism, Creativity and Collaboration by Sophy Smith agrees that DJ Babu invented the term. Every book that says someone else invented the term makes it that much harder for you to establish your own version of history. Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Possibly unfree File:CalebVHaynes-Amarillo1951.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CalebVHaynes-Amarillo1951.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 15:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Notability of deaths and dead people who become notable after death Hello! After seeing your comments on Talk:Chandra Levy#Requested move, I would like to let you know that there is a discussion going on at WP:VPP#Notability of deaths and dead people who become notable after death that I think you may be interested in. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC) My opinion about Chandra Levy was unique to her case, not indicative of any wish to change our current naming guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC) I thank you for taking a moment to read my suggestion of an interesting topic and respect your wishes to not get involved. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Energy Tower and Midland Texas Actually this is yours and your vandalistic friends last warning. Nothing that I have posted violates Wikipedia's policies. The only thing different in what I have done and what you and your vandals have done is that I have exposed the truth about a corrupt city government. Everything that I have posted is absolute verifiable fact. If you continue to harass me while speaking up for an entire community then you will be the one that will lose your editing priviledges. I've done nothing different than your and the people that you defend except to expose your corrupt tendencies. If you take away my priviledges for the reasons that you have stated then you must also take away your own priviledges and those of Uncle Milty, Atx1016, AV3553, Nuclear warfare. If your predatory harassment continues you will be reported and banned from WikipediaPerrys Conscience (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Please read WP:No original research and WP:Neutral point of view. I sympathize with your cause (I'm a member of my own city's historic buildings preservation association) but you will have to abide by Wikipedia policies in order to put forward your viewpoint. Try quoting some of the Wall Street Journal piece called "Energy Boom Sparks Building Spree in West Texas: As Many Companies Prosper, Opinions Diverge on a Proposed Office Tower That Would Dominate Midland's Skyline". This is where you'll find some diverging opinions including some from those who wish to keep the historic courthouse. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC) I will read that information, but there is nothing that I am doing any differently than you or anyone else who has been deleting the FACTS that I continue to add. My information is presented with a neutral point of view. Your buddies just don't like the fact that I am bringing to light the corruption that they are perpetrating on this city. Why don't you and your buddies have to abide by the same Wikipedia policies? I have done absolutely nothing that violates Wikipedia's policies of original research or neutral point of view. Just because you all keep wasting my time having to re-edit before I can learn how to site my references doesn't mean that my information is opinion and unreferenced. It simply means that Wikipedia's referencing technology is not easily figured out. I've noticed that you certainly haven't taken the time to call them on all of their unreferenced information. Why don't you do that? Why aren't you bullying and intimidating them for not siting and referencing their information like you've done to me? Why aren't you deleting their unreferenced information as you have done mine? Why aren't you bullying them and intimidating them for posting their "opinions" like you have done to me even though I haven't posted opinion? What I'd like to know is how much money have they paid you to agree with their lies and to disagree with my facts. I frankly don't care who you and all these other bullies think you are. I will not cower to your intimidation and harassment. Your actions are not supported by Wikipedia and do not follow Wikipedia's mission statement and intent. In fact your squashing of the facts and refusing to allow the community's voice to be heard is in complete conflict with Wikipedia's intent to honor truth and reality. You have been completely unfair and I will not let this go. Perrys Conscience (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC) As soon as you read WP:No original research you will understand why it is that you cannot tell the reader what is your personal analysis, such that "the Energy Tower Project is a lose-lose-lose for Midland City and County" and "Energy Tower will not rejuvenate downtown. It will kill Midland." The WP:Neutral point of view guideline is being trampled with non-neutral tone such as "the taxpaying citizens of Midland County were swindled"] and "the City Council is ...cheating Midland City taxpayers". Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Your welcome note Thank you for your welcome note on my page and pointing out a so-called edit war. Perhaps you can assist. Several editors have tried to create pages related to a US battle called the Doolitle Raid from WWII. However there are 2 administrators who don't like the pages and have unilaterally deleted every page created without any opportunity to 'reach a so-called consensus' on a talk page. We are creating pages to honor the contribution of war heros who risked heir lives in a landmark mission. Wikipedia is litttered with pages of people who are of dubious notability yet these pages survive. The Doolittle arcades are notable people and deserve to be discussed in this forum. Please warn these administrators that their opinions are not shared by others, and that these page will be recreated by those who recognize the notability of the Doolittle Raiders. Thank you. Doolittlefan (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) These articles were deleted after discussion at Articles for Deletion due to failing the relevant notability standards - restoring them against consensus is disruptive editing, and vowing to continue to recreate them is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Articles on Wikipedia do not exist because you like the subject, and the existiance (or not) of other articles is entirely irrelevant. If you believe that these articles should be recreated, you need to request undeletion at deletion review - continued edit-warring to restore against consensus will result in your being blocked for disruptive editing. Also please note that describing edits that are not vandalism as vandalism, as you did here, can be considered a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC) File source problem with File:TuskegeeP40.jpg Thank you for uploading File:TuskegeeP40.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC) TPN wiki changes Please clarify why the roll back. Changes were based on referenced TPN web-site and SPLC web-site. Original entry was out of date and/or inaccurate or unsusbtantiated. Cited text was inaccurate or incorrect. Please clarify specific changes that you considered "viewpoint". Kmita (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC) You have been reverted three times: twice by me and once by another. The burden is on you to explain at the article talk page what you wish to change. See you at Talk: Tea Party Nation. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Ok, I have entered each change one by one and specified in detail the reason for the change. I have also fixed or removed some of the broken references. Please review and advise if there are still issues with any of the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmita (talk • contribs) 03:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Making your disputed edits one by one is not a replacement for discussing them to create a consensus. Binksternet (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Your accuse me of edit war Accusing me of an edit war after revering first time changes to restore un-cited claims is rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Binksternet, thanks for catching the rest of those changes. Not sure the IP has seen the reply in Talk:Melissa Farley. Location (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC) You're welcome. It looks like IP person is following a personal grudge. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Just a question Hi Binksternet, Wondering if you know anything about the logistics of opening an investigation (that's probably not the proper word) re tendentious editing?01:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC) petrarchan47tc 02:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Sort of, yes. First, you should think like a prosecutor and build an ironclad case, with diffs of behavior. Binksternet (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Done. petrarchan47tc 19:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC) On another note... We are chipping away at beginning a conversation about policy change. I was thinking... only you, me and Gandydancer are able to offer an objective view of the BP talk page dynamics over a longer term. The recent brou - haha brought in a couple new editors who, being indies, can't be there everyday and being new, don't have the advantage of a bigger picture. That page is a fantastic case study for the problem we are attempting to address. It's one we three are quite familiar with, and i wondered if you might begin to think of summarizing your experience or take on things as a part of that case study? You can leave it anywhere that feels right - my talk page, here or here. The latter is probably best. I understand the vortex there and the desire to be doing almost anything else ;) so I thought a summary like this will take less time on your part but would really serve to advance the page itself, in the long run. petrarchan47tc 00:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Let me think about the problem for a bit longer. To treat it properly I need a stretch of uninterrupted time, but my work schedule is such that my wiki contributions are forced to be staccato. My little audio engineering world is like short-attention-span theater until I get a few days off in a row. I'm in the middle of flurry of busy-ness right now. But hey, I got to mix sound for Peter Buffett, Meklit Hadero, Angélique Kidjo and Charlie Mars at recent gigs, so at least the work is rewarding... Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Peter Buffett! Wow!! (I'm sure the others are great too, my music knowledge is lacking). I totally understand, I just happen to have time off right now but will soon disappear to my paying job... This is actually the point we're trying to convey: to depend on independent editors to counteract PR teams on Wiki is futile. But it's the policy Wikipedia has embraced, possibly to its demise. Enjoy petrarchan47tc 20:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Not like you ... Binksternet, you definitely know better than to make accusations like this. I'm sure that I can rely on your ethics to retract what was surely just a one-of-a-kind, heated moment (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Here it is a day later and whatever heat was with me yesterday is still present. The BP article is incredibly frustrating for a long-time volunteer editor like me who wishes to make daily rounds of several thousand articles on the watchlist for maximum value to the encyclopedia. The BP article is an unwanted time-suck; it has its own vortex, something of a tar baby effect where the more you try to move the more stuck you are. From the volume and tenor of the interactions I continue to think that several of the editors there are paid, not just Arturo who is declared. It baffles me to consider how to pursue this problem; Wikipedia guidelines do not point to a clear solution. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC) The support system behind editors who seem to favor big biz is absolutely incredible. I'm a bit jealous. Binksternet, I meant to invite you to share your two cents here. We are looking to come up with a formal proposal to deal with this situation. petrarchan47tc 19:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC) The passions exhibited by some editors on that page are such that I think his suspicions of some kind of undisclosed COI are well warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC) The repetitive support of every pro-BP edit on ANY topic is so pervasive it is grueling to deal with. The article is being strangled by $$$$. We will never know who besides Arturo is going to the pay window. Or what the manner of renumeration is. But, the steadfast support of everything BP is too strong to just be a gaggle of editors that favor corporations over people. Is it possible to get a BP credit card with Wikipedia's logo and the saying, "I edit Wikipedia" across the front? If so, once I get my "I edit Wikipedia" T-shirt I could get a card and then I would be a collector of "I edit WP" stuff.```Buster Seven Talk 03:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Improper RfC closure at Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wayne (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks much Thank you for your helpful comments at Talk:No worries/GA2, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC) I saw it as a case of "I don't like it so let's hit the GAR button and see what happens". The system rightly emphasizes the value of keeping GA articles rather than delisting. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion Hello, Binksternet. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs) 03:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)