User talk:Binksternet/Archive42

Suspected Harvey Carter Sock on Bombing of Dresden Talkpage

Hi Binks. 31.50.130.44 appears to be a new one. Upsurge of activity including the stuff on Strategic bombing article. Usual MOA. Simon Irondome (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep! The guy is persistent, and just as wrong as ever. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

What's Up cover reverted

Hello Binksternet,

I just created my account on Wikipedia and even if I often use Wikipedia, it's the first time I try to edit a page, so sorry if I'm not very aware of everything... I tried to add on the "What's Up (song)" page in the section "Other cover versions", a new line about a video clip which is a cover of this song. Apparently you reverted my addition. Could you please help me to better understand how such addition could be acceptable and/or why you have reverted it? Again, it's my first contribution and I would like to do better :)

Many thanks in advance for your answer,

Best regards, Jeacerp

Jeacerp, there's a guideline for mentioning cover versions, found at WP:SONGCOVER. Basically, the guideline says the cover version should be important to the topic, for instance it was released as a single, or it was much talked about in the media. It's not enough that the cover version exists. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016

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 review: Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Harvey Carter suspect again

More murky goings on Strategic bombing during World War II. 165.120.157.80 claiming the Nazis only bombed Polish military targets. Yeah right and they were bombs made of nice bouncy rubber too. I have asked for a R/S and reverted twice. Tut. Irondome (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is located here --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note I did not open the thread I am just notifying you of it. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hoax article?

Your friends at Commons have found a hoax image and perhaps the article is as well? See [1], and [2]... User:INeverCry[3] is the most active admin on Commons[4] and his request for a speedy was declined, despite that at least one of the references goes directly to an en:wiki page and the image is obviously fake. Could you give us a wee assist here? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Utter hoax, failed verification in the cited sources. I am blanking the article in as many languages as it appears. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

GA nomination for the Wrecking Crew

I was thinking of nominating the Wrecking Crew article for GA, and I was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing it? Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

That could work. You know how tough I am! Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes I know... But that is a good thing--because it ensures the best quality in an article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I just nominated the article for GA candidacy, so it's ready to go. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering how everything is coming along with the Wrecking Crew review. Please let me know of any issues you see that need to be addressed there. I've been combing through the article trying make corrections and improvements, and I'm trying to apply what I've learned from previous reviews (you taught me about a lot of the kinds of things to look out for when you reviewed the Garage rock article)--but you'll probably see things I've missed there or still need to change. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

An artist's remarkability

Hello sir, how's everything going?

I'm kinda amazed that why do you call Celtic Woman music group 'unremarkable'. well, what makes them unremarkable? they're officially singers, they've got a label, they release albums, their are pretty well-known... and so if they cover any song why that cover ain't deserve to be mentioned on 'covers' segment of song articles? For instance, on the song article The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (song) there are lots of singers that re-recorded the song such as : Josh Groban, Albert Lee, Jimmy Webb, Tone Damli and etc. Well, do these groups and vocalists got anything more than Celtic Woman and its members to be 'remarkable' enough for staying on cover's list, but how come Celtic Woman MUST be eliminated each time buy you?

Best Wishes 4 U Bright Swan (talk) 10:48 AM, 23 August 2016

You are probably referring to these two edits of mine – [5] and [6] – in which I wrote in the edit summary: "Rv per WP:SONGCOVER. Unremarkable album tracks are not important enough to mention." The tracks are unremarkable, not the artist. All artists have some album tracks that did not chart and were not widely discussed. Such tracks are not important enough to mention. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, actually Celtic Woman's tracks ARE widely discussed. You eliminated The Moons A Harsh Mistress cover while it's on an album of them which took the 9th peak on 200 US Billboard charts. So doesn't it mean a 'widely discussed' or a 'remarkable' track?? Bright Swan (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The album's chart success doesn't mean every track is just as successful. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Then what represents a track's remarkability? our opinion about it's success? Oh come on for the sake of God!!! Do you think anyone can say some music is unremarkable or it is?! what's wrong with having vaster information on Wikipedia??? It's just sounds deeply mindless. Bright Swan (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:SONGCOVER it's important if the song cover version meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONG or if it is mentioned in a reliable source discussing the song itself rather than the cover version alone. So it's a steep requirement which eliminates a lot of cover versions from our articles. I'm sure the decision was made for the purpose of having our song articles stay focused on what's important to the reader. "Vaster" information is certainly a goal, but keeping our articles focused was seen as more important. To me, "mindless" would be the exhaustive listing of every cover version, no matter how important. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Abortion

While I can understand if you want to keep the citation of Eileen L. McDonagh, I'm just not good at rephrasing, and using the word "explains" in such a way that it refers to the entire text, even when he is advocating a contested position in the end of the text gives the impression that all he says is belived to be true by most poeple.

If you think I'm giving undue weight to the anti-abortion stance, I'll reply that http://worldabortionlaws.com/map/ shows that 40-60% of the word's population lives in a land where abortion is illegal. While I'd have prefered a more exact way of determining world opinion on abortion, I'd hope this makes my point.

IF YOU HAVE CLEARER DATA, PLEASE GIVE ME A LINK. IN THAT CASE, THERE IS NO POINT IN READING FUTHER TO READ MY NITPICKS ON INDIVIDUAL REVERSIONS

I removed "care" because from an anti-abortion perspective: "killing a baby is hardly care"

I changed "For example, the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" imply endorsement of widely held values such as liberty and freedom" to "For example, the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" imply endorsement of widely held values such as liberty or the right to life" because the earlier sentence contained only values that "pro-choice" implies the endorsement of, while it doesn't contain values that "pro-life" implies the endorsement of, but the later contains one value that "pro-choice" implies the endorsement of and one value that "pro-life" implies the endorsement of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.62.145 (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

My apologies for the edit on the 1 (Beatles album) page. I have no idea what happened and how I did that ! Thanks for the revert...Poirier2000 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Urban Cowboy article

You're wrong about it being a case of using Wiki for promotion "soapbox" when the famous image of John Travolta holding a bottle of Lone Star beer is captioned to identify it for readers. The "advertising" was already paid for long ago by the company to get their beer featured in the 30-year-old movie, and now that the image is an icon it is a matter of historical interest and proper for any encyclopedia, as is the need for a Wiki article on the company, which I wonder why you don't try to delete too since you're a self-appointed judge. Since the company that made it sold out to a bigger one and doesn't even make it anymore, it's a double dumbass on you. You're being triply irrational since you didn't delete the image too that shows the beer's name. The Wiki Product placement article is filled with mentions of brands. Why don't you delete them too? Please undo your revert and stop your misguided editing war, or it will have to be submitted to arbitration. - 74.95.112.141 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.112.141 (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's trivial; should not be in the caption. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Evolution-Creation Controversy

Hello Binkster,

I may have been a bit too one-sided in my commentary on the Evolution-Creation controversy. So, I'm glad you removed it for now. I would be happy to participate in its final framing (if there is such a thing).

What bothers me most about the controversy is what is passing for scientific fact instead of theory. It is still the "Theory" of Evolution, because there is no way for science to prove evolution. The scientific method is this:

1. Observe a process 2. Propose a hypothesis 3. Test the hypothesis 4. Analyze the results to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis

I find it interesting that most Evolutionary Scientists will admit that it is an unproven theory. Some have even written books stating that evolution is untenable. Yet, most of the time, scientists from other disciplines (not evolutionary scientists) are the ones that claim evolution to be science fact. I have a friend, who is a good man, and a scientist. He claims to have witnessed evolution in person via fish. When I explain to him that what he is witnessing is adaptation, he becomes irate. You see, he's written a couple of articles and in them he said the fish evolved. So, he's on the hook (so to speak). There is a world of difference between adaptation and evolution, but the lines become easily blurred if we are not careful.

We cannot observe the evolutionary process, and there is no test we can use to prove evolution. We can only propose a hypothesis about evolution. The same is true of creation. In both instances, there are no scientific test results to analyze. Yes, we can look at fossils, but Creationists believe in dinosaurs too, and they have proposed hypotheses that are just as compelling as those of evolutionists. So, all I'm asking is that we make sure our article is fair and just to both sides. Not stating that either is scientific fact, nor giving an edge to either. As a Knowledge Center, I believe we have the responsibility to remain neutral in this and present both sides equally.

Well, I've probably bored you to death. Thanks for reading, Stevizard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevizard (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You are setting a false equivalence between creationism and the theory of evolution. I am not going to debate under those conditions. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

doom metal edit

Hi, you asked for a cite for the edit I added to to the doom metal article. Here is the relevant passage, and the cite is below:

"Since the release of 1970's Kirikyogen (a collaborative effort with Kuni Kawachi), Flower Travellin' Band have also been cultivating a heavily dissonant guitar style that emphasized on a low-tuned sound and slower tempos, thus giving their music a more menacing characteristic. Much like Black Sabbath's Master Of Reality, Jacula's In Cauda Semper Stat Venenum, and the heavy, prog-influenced sound of Lucifer's Friend have been credited with developing the idiosyncrasies of doom metal, Kirikyogen also played a significant part in its creation."

2602:30A:2C44:7D7F:6DF2:3617:CBCD:DD42 (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC) chmiller

References

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dragon Ball: Sleeping Princess in Devil's Castle

added a link pointing to Kamehameha

Here Comes Peter Cottontail

added a link pointing to Irresponsibility

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump endorsements

What is the difference between support and endorsement in your opinion? Please reply here.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

If you don't like the article I used as a reference earlier, here's a tweet. Is that not good enough?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The tweet does the trick. Thanks for the link. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I added it, but I wasn't too sure how to cite the Twitter link with the citing template.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm unwatching your talkpage--please ping me if you reply. Otherwise, have a nice day!Zigzig20s (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, Wednesday, August 31

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Hi folks,

We would like to invite you to this month's Bay Area WikiSalon. The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We make sure to allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages and light snacks. We will also have a brief presentation for your education and possible enjoyment:

• Former EFF intern Marta Belcher will discuss crowdsourcing her Stanford Law School graduation speech using a wiki. The "WikiSpeech" was the subject of prominent national media attention in 2015, and more than half of her classmates contributed to writing and editing the commencement address via a wiki.

Please note: You should register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on the I.D. part. This also helps us figure out how much food and drink to bring in! Feel free to stop by even if only to say a quick hello, but you might have to give us a last minute call if you forget to RSVP. Also, don't be shy about hitting us up if you have thoughts on speakers or wiki-related activities.

For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, August 2016

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Mel Brooks - unsourced content

Hello.

I'm not sure if you aware, but the date Mel Brooks was born (1926) Gdansk (Danzig) was an autonomic state - Free City of Gdansk, under the rule of League of Nations, so, as you can see, officially it wasn't Germany nor Poland.

It's not about source. It's about basic knowledge of history of central Europe.

Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:115F:871:DA00:7421:88A3:D75F:B6D6 (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Notability of DJ's?

Greetings: I really don't know enough about music to judge this page, but the photo looks very professional and the total result is vaguely promotional. Please see DJ Klypso! Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sending it to AfD. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Rachel Platten

Hello,

I noticed that you recently reverted my edit of Rachel Platten adding that her family is Jewish. The reasoning given was: "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Rachel Platten. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)"

My response to that is that the addition was neither unsourced nor poorly sourced, as the source was one that's already cited on the Wikipedia page. It's a newsletter from her synagogue that lists her family as congregants. It's also not defamatory or controversial content, it's an identification (much like where she's from) that will give so many Jewish children in this country something to look up to because they have a role model who is a little more like them.

I look forward to hearing from you on why you believe this information isn't acceptable for Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreman009 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The source mentions a Pamela Platten in passing, saying nothing about whether this person is Jewish or even Rachel's mother. It could be some other Pamela Platten, and she could be participating in the synagogue activities without being Jewish. Thus the source fails verification for your purpose of proving Rachel Platten is Jewish. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Tonight: Live and archived links for Bay Area WikiSalon

Bay Area WikiSalon, Wednesday, August 31:

If you cannot join us in person tonight, we are streaming (and later archiving) the presentation by former EFF intern Marta Belcher. We expect her to be live starting between 6:30 or 6:45 p.m. PDT and talking and taking questions for about 30 minutes thereafter.

Here is the YouTube stream link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t8V79s2-og
Here is the link to join the Hangout on Air: https://hangouts.google.com/call/ezrol7dafjfwxfh2ilpkjyxoaue

You can search for it on the Commons and YouTube later too.

Wayne, Pete, Ben, and Stephen

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Binksternet. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

David J Johnson (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Your recent editing history at Steinway & Sons shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hofurytg (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit to Neo-bop jazz

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Neo-bop jazz without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. 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! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

About my edit to Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute

It wasn't a test edit: I thought that word didn't need to be capitalized. What is the problem? I'm sorry if that was wrong.Mcc1789 (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

My bad. I self-reverted. Sorry! Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Rob Thomas wife and son

You rejected my August 17, 2016 submission on Rob Thomas page... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Thomas_(musician)

The sources are as follows: http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/rob-thomas/bio/377199/

http://www.angelfire.com/or3/aor/robert.HTML

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0859434/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

184.167.193.131 (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Easy Company

Hello, I have seen that you have deleted my changes for Easy Company. You tell me that only the notable names should be used. I understand that. However, there were many members of Easy Company and not all of them had Wikipedia pages. I think that everyone who served in Easy Company should be listed and not just those depicted in the miniseries, as roles had to be reduced or became nonexistent in order to make the story flow better in the miniseries.

I just think that it would be better to include everyone who fought in Easy Company and not just those who have Wikipedia pages. Many characters in the series do not have Wikipedia pages. I think everyone who fought in Easy Company should have a Wikipedia page. I mean no disrespect to you, but this is how I feel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.143.240.164 (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand the way you feel. There is, however, a guideline regarding this on Wikipedia, which says that only notable people should be listed. I've been keeping a lid on this list for the past five years.starting in December 2011. If you would like to have me stop then you should go to the talk page at Talk:E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) and get a discussion going about what names should be listed. We can have a WP:Request for comment, which is the best way to establish a local variance in the general Wikipedia practice. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Your RFPP requests

Are you requesting ECP on purpose or was it an accident? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I was looking to protect the articles from a person using multiple IPs. Whatever method that is, that's the method I want. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection then, not extended confirmed protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

PartyNextDoor

I'm curious why you reverted the reasonable edits of another user and I on 6 September 2016, because you provided no explanation. I restored the removed content. If you want to discuss, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Vdjj1960 (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016

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 review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare Op-ed: Hawkeye7 looks at Australians on the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Bon jovi burning bridges

If burning bridges is not a studio album, then should we remove from Bon Jovi's discography section? As it says studio albums on the top. Please let me know. Thank you.Campingfreak3599 (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You're talking about Burning Bridges (Bon Jovi album), which is a compilation album rather than a studio album, and the Bon Jovi discography, which correctly lists the Burning Bridges album as a compilation. I don't see anything that needs to be fixed. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No, on Bon Jovi's Wikipedia page. Sorry, I should have clarified that more. Don't worry about it, I took care of it. Campingfreak3599 (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Bon jovi

I just got a message on my talk page about my edits on This house is not for sale saying that I may be blocked for my edits. Can you help me out I don't want to be blocked. Campingfreak3599 (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The other guy is on the way to getting blocked, but you might also be blocked for edit warring. We should put the disputed pages into WP:RPP. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a FYI User:Burningblue52 @ ANI Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 17:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Bon jovi

This House Is Not for Sale, somebody changed thirteenth studio album to fourteenth studio album. Campingfreak3599 (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I saw that, so now I'm wondering if that editor is a sockpuppet. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Periphery band

Check All things periphery Facebook page. Yangyang Wei is a member confirmed by Jake Bowen, Mark Holcomb, Misha Mansoor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.214.44 (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You must be talking about a fan-based Facebook page. The official band page says nothing like that. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Solar power

Hey Binksternet, I'm just going through my watchlist after arriving home from work and I'm horrified after noticing that I reverted an edit of yours this afternoon. I soon realized that it was an unintentional "butt dial" situation with my phone. Sorry about that. I hope that explains what must have been a perplexing moment. Keep up the great work (This place would most likely fall to pieces in a heartbeat without all of your effort). Dawnseeker2000 01:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I never thought it was intentional. Best! Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Eden

The article in question was about a famous British person — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikeImBatman (talk • contribs) 18:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly! Which is why the UK style of English is found in that article. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

We do not really use 'an' before 'H' in speech or publication here — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikeImBatman (talk • contribs) 16:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@LikeImBatman: With 57 edits I wouldn't be preaching guidelines, here's a guideline you should review. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 16:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits

Hello,

I am responding to the complaint you posted regarding my alleged 'disruptive edits', primarily in regard to Transformers: Age of Extinction. I was initially very surprised - and somewhat, I'll admit - angry upon reading this. I have made countless edits to all manner of Wikipedia pages and this was the first negative response I have received. On the contrary, I generally receive appreciative acknowledgment of my edits. My main issue, however, lay in the simple fact that I knew that I had made no such edits to the relevant article. I have since learned that an individual who occasionally co-habits with me had been using my device to make certain edits - edits that I myself would not have made. While I realize that you could not be aware of this, and that, ultimately, the responsibility lies with me, I wanted to make you aware of the fact that I would never make such edits or alterations of my own volition. Again, I focus on making useful, constructive edits, to the point where I have received several invitations to become an administrator. I appreciate that your message was well-intentioned and, frankly, deserved given the situation, and I wanted to reassure you that I have taken measures to ensure that it cannot and will not happen again. Once again, my apologies for any disruption caused. Best Wishes, Ash (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ash, you have been warned twice before about putting too much detail into plot sections. You were warned on December 11, 2014, then you were warned again (by me) on August 26, 2015. Despite the warnings, you added a bunch of text to the film plot section. That's why I gave you a Level 3 warning. Level 3 warnings are appropriate for someone who has been warned twice already but is continuing with the disruptive behavior.

Personally, I use this online tool to count the words in a plot section. Perhaps if you used such a tool you would be more in touch with the plot length. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for contacting you again, but it seems that, judging by your response to my explanation regarding disruptive edits, you completely ignored pretty much everything I wrote. Once again, I myself did not make the edits in question, and was not even aware of their existence until I read your warning. As I stated, I have taken steps to ensure that the individual who was responsible for the offending edits is no longer able to access either my Wikipedia account or my device. I hope this will reassure you that the situation has been taken care of, and, hopefully, will negate the need for any further complaints, Best Wishes, Ash (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ash, I ignored your claim that someone else used your account because that kind of argument is usually false, and even if it is true it is dealt with by blocking the account as compromised. Either way you'll get blocked if a large plot addition appears again coming from your account. Either way you're responsible. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for taking the time to do the review on the Wrecking Crew article. I should also note the improvements you made in several places there, particularly the parts describing the recording process, were "spot-on" (which, of course, comes as no surprise). Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you chose the Wrecking Crew article to improve! I helped Kickstart the Wrecking Crew documentary with a small donation, so I was already interested in the topic. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I had never known about Kickstarter and how the donations by you and others played a key role in getting the documentary off the ground. That is even more reason to be thankful. I have a copy on DVD and have loved watching it over and over. It is an awesome documentary about these great, yet previously unknown musicians. I was wondering if some charitable organizations might be able to raise funds to restore some of those old recording studios in L.A. and elsewhere--I suppose it wouldn't be feasible unless they were museums. I love those old studios--I know that Columbia had a bunch in New York, L.A., and Nashville. I love the sound of vintage recording gear used in those eras. I'd love to find out what happened to those old Columbia vacuum tube recording consoles they made for all of their studios in L.A., New York, and Nashivlle. [7] [8] Oh man, and those patch bays! I heard that Lenny Kravitz has put his EMI Redd-37 up for sale. [9] Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

How to make a million in recording: start with two million.

It would be great to make a museum out of every historic studio, but it would take a lot of money. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, having a really great studio is an expensive proposition. I wish more people today appreciated vintage sound--that would make it more feasible. But, we're living in the digital age. I guess all of the old recordings are still there, so we can savor all of the great vintage music--like all the stuff recorded by the Wrecking Crew at Gold Star, Columbia, Western, RCA, Sunset Sound... I'm getting nostalgic with tears in my eyes. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

What?

What in the world was this about? — Gorthian (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Binksternet appears to be on a bit of rampage. Look at what he did at Talk:Intelligent_Design. Poodleboy (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember doing that. I would call it a fat-fingered mistake, equivalent to a butt dial. Crazy! Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, that makes much more sense than doing it deliberately. Thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Poodleboy (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Serial Kidnapping of Korean Women in 1930's

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I'm a Korean historian. The comfort women issue and kidnapping of Korean women are two distinct issue. Please read the article again carefully. If you still feel it is the comfort women issue, please let me know. Thanks --D.H.Lee (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I wasn't aware of the three-revert rule. I will make sure I'll keep the rule in the future. Thnaks. --D.H.Lee (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The "serial kidnapping" and Comfort women are the same issue. You have been attempting to put a revisionist history into the encyclopedia.

Even if you are a Korean historian, it makes no difference here. We assess all the literature and summarize it. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you please read the following articles and realize who are the real revisionists? You will realize that 99% of the Westerners have fallen for the propaganda by pro-North Korea activists. Please do read them, thanks! http://scholarsinenglish.blogspot.jp/2014/10/summary-of-professor-park-yuhas-book.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/19/world/asia/south-korea-comfort-women-park-yu-ha.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=2 http://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2009/05/10/books/book-reviews/continuing-controversy-of-comfort-women/#.VLzLMpX9mcx --D.H.Lee (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia works, if the great majority of writings are in agreement, then that agreement is the mainstream version. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

For your information Korean scholars like Professor Park Yuha and Professor chunghee Sarah Soh, their work is based on dozens of primary sources such as Korean newspaper reports from 1930's and a diary written by a Korean comfort station manager. The primary sources clearly indicate that the common narrative is incorrect. I've also spoken to dozens of Korean who were raised in the Korean Peninsula in 1920's & 1930's, and they all agree with Professor Park and Professor Soh. I'm really disappointed if that's how Wikipedia works. I think it's important to keep pages like this alive so that the other side's view can be heard. I will promise that I will never make any revision to "comfort women" Wikipedia. I'll leave the mainstream version as it is. But could you please keep my page alive also so that some day someone will realize the truth? Thanks. --D.H.Lee (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I was already aware of the work of Park Yuha and Chunghee Sarah Soh. Their work has not been embraced by the mainstream. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know. The activist group filed a civil lawsuit in South Korea. Professor Park lost the case and was ordered to pay close $100,000. The South Korean prosecutor has also filed a criminal lawsuit against Professor Park. If convicted, she may face jail time. When the subject is about Japan, there is no academic freedom in South Korea.

But my grandparents and many of their contemporaries witnessed many Korean women taken away by the Korean traffickers. In fact one of my grandmother's friend was a victim. She was deceived by a Korean trafficker but was rescued by Japanese policemen. This incident was reported in the first of the following reports. http://koreannewsreports.blogspot.com/#!/2016/09/korean-newspaper-reports-from-1930s.html Also the diary written by a Korean comfort manager clearly indicate that Korean women were recruited by Korean operators. http://scholarsinenglish.blogspot.com/2016/04/korean-comfort-station-managers-diary.html Mainstream historians can't read primary sources in Korean, therefore they get it wrong. --D.H.Lee (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You lost me with your "pro-North Korea" comment. Nobody at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is a fan of North Korea (that's an understatement), yet they define the comfort women case as sexual slavery by the Japanese military, a system which started in 1932 but was greatly expanded in 1937. If you think that the mainstream view of the comfort women issue is "propaganda by pro-North Korea activists" then you have pointedly ignored the work by Filipino researchers, American researchers, South Korean researchers, and even Japanese researchers such as Yoshiaki Yoshimi. The UNCHR says there were three types of comfort women: "the recruitment of willing women and girls who were already prostitutes; the luring of women with the offer of well­paid work in restaurants or as cooks or cleaners for the army; and, finally, large­scale coercion and violent abduction of women in what amounts to slave raids in countries under Japanese control." Sex slavery aspect was the largest, with willing prostitution being by far the smallest proportion. Also, the great majority of interviewed comfort women talk about appalling conditions of harshness and cruelty. The few comfort women who say otherwise are not representative of the larger reality. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Pro-North Korea applies to Korean activists ("Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery" aka "Chong Dae Hyup" 정대협 挺対協) They are the ones that created the false narrative "200,000 Korean women were coerced by the Japanese military" in order to drive a wedge into U.S.-Japan-South Korea security partnership. Please read footnote #9 of the following. It will show that many of the members of the activist group have arrest records as North Korean spies. http://scholarsinenglish.blogspot.com/2014/10/summary-of-professor-park-yuhas-book.html I quote from Professor Park Yuha's book. "There were two types of comfort women. (1) Japanese and Korean women. They were not coerced by the Japanese military. (2) Local women in the battlefields (Dutch women in Indonesia, Filipino women in the Philippines, etc.) Dozens of them were coerced by lower ranked Japanese soldiers in violation of the military rules. Those soldiers were court-martialed, and some executed. These two types should have been treated differently. But when the comfort women became an issue in the early 1990's, all women who provided sex to the Japanese military were treated uniformly, and that created a big confusion."

I'm not denying that lower ranked Japanese soldiers coerced dozens of Dutch, Filipino women, etc. I'm simply saying Korean women weren't coerced by the Japanese military. It is very important to separate Korean women and local women. That's why I created the separate page and they shouldn't be merged.

As for Yoshimi, read footnote #7 of the following article. http://scholarsinenglish.blogspot.com/2014/10/summary-of-professor-park-yuhas-book.html　In fact if you had read the whole article, it would have answered all your questions. Thanks, again. --D.H.Lee (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The more you refer to the scholarsinenglish blog, the less impressed I am with your position. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether you like that blog or not, the article's footnotes provide crucial sources that you can't deny. Since the Japanese military was busy fighting in China, Southeast Asia and Pacific, it had very few soldiers left in Korea which wasn't the battlefield. The Japanese military couldn't have possibly coerced Korean women. Most people misunderstand the comfort women issue because they can't separate the Korean women and the rest. Yes other women were coerced, and my article isn't challenging that at all. Most people think 200,000 Korean women were coerced by the Japanese military because the Korean activists are very loud in spreading the false narrative. Anyway I'm going to bed now, so I will answer your comment when I wake up. Good night! (or Good day for you) --D.H.Lee (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

One last comment before I go to bed. I estimate there were about 80,000 comfort women, of which 40,000 were Japanese, 38,000 were Korean and 2,000 were local women like Dutch & Filipinas. The Japanese & Korean women (78,000 together) were recruited by private operators and 2,000 local women were coerced by the Japanese soldiers. The Korean activists wanted to defame Japan to prevent Japan-South Korea reconciliation. But the Japanese military coercing 2,000 women wasn't a good story. So they created this illusion that the Japanese military coerced Korean women, in which case the number would increase dramatically, and many fell for the illusion. If you read UN or Yoshimi's latest comment carefully, neither says the Japanese military coerced Korean women. --D.H.Lee (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Your estimates mean nothing here. Wikipedia needs estimates that are published in reliable sources, especially favoring history books and scholarly writings. Regardless of the total number, the reliable sources agree that the majority of Korean comfort women were coerced into sex slavery, not willing volunteers. That's a critical point—we must not lose sight of it. The local Kempeitai were complicit in the coercion of Korean comfort women. Toshiyuki Tanaka (among many others) writes about this in his book Japan's Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World War II and the US Occupation. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

They are just estimates. I provided those numbers to show the ratio of Japanese/Korean/others. That's why I don't mention them in my article. If the total was 100,000, then that means 50,000 Japanese, 48,000 Korean and 2,000 others. Yes, the majority of Korean women were coerced into sex slavery, not willing volunteers, and that's what my article is for. They were coerced by Korean comfort station operators and traffickers. Are you aware that over 90% of Kempeitai were Korean? In fact all field officers were Korean, and they collaborated with the traffickers by receiving bribes. Let me copy and paste what we have discussed to the deletion page so that others can understand the issue. --D.H.Lee (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you understand that the Kempeitai was a Japanese Military Police organization. The guilt of local officers is not independent from the guilt of the Japanese military. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The Kempeitai chief, who was Japanese, was at fault for not being able to realize that his Korean subordinates were receiving bribes and assisting the traffickers. Please also note that not a single scholar including Tanaka has yet to produce a primary or secondary source that Kempeitai coerced Korean women. I know the Korean Kempeitai assisted the traffickers because my grandparents knew some Korean Kempeitai personally. Anyway if you really want to assist those pro-North Korea activists in extending their narrative, which happens to be the mainstream narrative at the moment, go ahead. You seem to accuse me of being pro-Japanese. Believe me I'm not. Why should I be? I'm South Korean. I'm anti-North Korea, and I'm trying to stop their propaganda. I feel South Korea-Japan-US security partnership is very important especially when the fat boy is shooting missles over our heads almost every day. And the false narrative on the comfort women issue has succeeded in interfering a solid South Korea-Japan partnership. --D.H.Lee (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You said on the deletion page "Korean women constituted the majority of the comfort women, and that local Koreans of every stripe were complicit in getting girls and women into the Japanese comfort women program." If that's the case don't you think comfort women wikipedia puts too much blame on the Japanese military? The Japanese military did send orders to Korean operators to only recruit willing prostitutes and not to recruit unwilling women. Comfort women wikipedia makes it sound as if the Japanese military coerced majority of women. The Japanese military came up with the comfort women program so that its soldiers wouldn't rape innocent civilians, which is far more conscientious than the Russian, Serbian or German military. --D.H.Lee (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please review

Hiya Binkster: This is an open item from last year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Analytical_drawing. It doesn't appear any attempt has been work on that page in a year, but as long as those wiggly drawings are in use, they can't be removed! Any help you can render will be greatly appreciated by your friends at Commons! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Analytical drawing. See you there! Binksternet (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney is Mexican American if his father was born in Mexico by technicality. That is the price for his family member wanting to have multiple wives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.193.249.28 (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

He has no Mexican heritage. Do reliable sources describe him as Mexican American? Mostly they don't. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Chowkatsun9

You reverted one of Tsunguitar's edits on grounds of sockpuppetry. Can you file a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chowkatsun9? --George Ho (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

There are countless examples of Chowkatsun9 socking, which is why I have not bothered to file any reports in the last year. It's quite wearing. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Other examples? I'm gonna file it anyway. George Ho (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll tack on my examples. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I've filed another case request at SPI. George Ho (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Want to help test advanced new tools planned for Recent Changes?

Hi Binksternet! I’m reaching out to you because our logs tell us you’re a very active Twinkle user (top 25, actually!). The WMF Collaboration team is working on new tools that we hope will be useful to people engaged in reviewing recent changes, fighting vandalism or supporting new users. We want to test them for usability with editors who are experienced with relevant wiki work. If you’re interested in helping to shape this new technology—we’d like to hear from you.

The testing should take about an hour, will be conducted online, and will take place during the next few weeks. To participate, please email dchen[at]wikimedia.org with the subject line Twinkle User. Include the following information:

• Username
• Email where we can reach you
• Your city or time zone
• Best time to talk to you
• Your primary use of Twinkle or Recent Changes (e.g., reviewing recent changes, reviewing with a particular focus (specify), anti-vandalism, new-page review, welcoming new users, etc.)

Thanks! Dchen (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Email sent. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I need help classifying a KT Tunstall album

Binksternet, I need your help in classifying a KT Tunstall album, KT Tunstall's Acoustic Extravaganza, because I think I made a mistake calling it a studio album. I am coming to you because you have shown a strong knowledge of music articles, and have a passion for correcting music articles, so I respect your opinion, even if I occasionally disagree.

I wrote a question on KT Tunstall's talk page, rather long winded but that's my style, "Talk:KT Tunstall#Is KT Tunstall's Acoustic Extravaganza a studio album?," but to summarize it, she has an album that in some articles was classified as a studio album, and in other articles, it was listed as a compilation. I looked it over and per my discussion on the talk page, decided it was closer to a studio album, and changed all related articles to show that she had six studio albums and this was her second one. I have a hard time seeing this as a compilation album as this is a collection of new material, mostly acoustical re-recordings, plus a gathering of B-sides, and some brand new material. However, after I did all this, I am sure I made a mistake. I was signed up with KT Tunstall on PledgeMusic for her latest album, KIN, and she sent in one of her mailers that she was releasing her fifth studio album. Periodicals also refer to it as her fifth studio album. Since there is no controversy about any of her other studio albums (Eye to the Telescope, Drastic Fantastic, Tiger Suit, and Invisible Empire // Crescent Moon) being true studio albums, this means that outside of Wikipedia, there is agreement that KT Tunstall's Acoustic Extravaganza is not a studio album.

In which case, what is it?

I am unhappy calling it a compilation album, but if it is not a studio album, that appears to be the closest it might be. Can you think of any other category it might be? Or despite what KT Tunstall (or her publicity department) says and what the periodicals say, is it a studio album? I am willing to go back to all the articles and fix them up, but I just want to get it right this time. Mburrell (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Because of the WP:SECONDARY guideline, Mburrell. it's less important what Tunstall's record company says and more important what the third-party reviewers say. Of course, a lot of reviewers will accept the record company's position without question, and primary sources can be of interest to the reader.

There are two angles to chase down... The first is what the album is called starting in 2006 when it came out and extending to now. The second is the way reviewers count the studio albums after Acoustic Extravaganza. Let's look at some online sources:

• Billboard said in March 2006 that the album was "fan-oriented" and that Tunstall was currently writing songs for another album which would be her second. That means Acoustic Extravaganza is not part of the album count.
• Sam's Music has an in-house magazine which reviewed the album a few days ago, calling it a "collection", but also referring to the studio environment. The same writer covers Tunstall in two preceding articles, and in none of them does he assign a sequence number to Tunstall's albums.
• The Skinny called the album a collection.
• Blue Note Records assigns the number 3 to Tiger Suit, which means Acoustic Extravaganza doesn't count. This is not a secondary source.
• Virgin Records says Invisible Empire // Crescent Moon is studio album number 4. This is not a secondary source.
• Broadway World says KIN is the fifth studio album.
• The Daily Record doesn't put Acoustic Extravaganza in the same group as the other "chart albums" which followed.

I'm sure I can go find more sources that put a particular album in a numbered sequence, but these sources here are all in agreement that the fan-oriented acoustic album was not part of the main sequence. Hope that helps! Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. I was strongly leaning towards not a studio album, and you confirmed it. So my question is into what round hole do I shove this square peg? If it is a collection, is it a compilation? On KT Tunstall's main page, it divides into Studio Albums and Other Albums, and that is easy. But on her discography page, it is divided into Studio Albums, Live Albums, Extended Plays, and Demo Albums. Do I create a new category for Collections, or Compilations/Collections, or just call it a Compilation? Is there another choice?, I really don't like to call this a compilation, although I guess I may have to. I do appreciate your help and advice, so if you can just help me name what category the album falls into, I will just take the plunge and fix (much reverting) my previous edits. Since I hate calling it a compilation, I am leaning on creating a category for Compilations/Collections. Mburrell (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the crux of it. A compilation album is primarily tracks that were recorded in various earlier sessions, with maybe a new track or two thrown in. The album in question doesn't fit that description, since it was recorded all in the same place with the same basic crew, over the span of a few days. I guess the term "collection" is applied by our sources because the album contains songs that were previously offered to the customer but in different form. There are enough of those to make people think of it as a collection.

I would agree with your determination to set up a new section at the discography, under the name Compilations/Collections, even though Tunstall does not yet have a Greatest Hits album or any other album which qualifies as a compilation. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. One last question. I would like to post this conversation in the KT Tunstall talk page, in the section Talk:KT Tunstall#Is KT Tunstall's Acoustic Extravaganza a studio album?. I would like to start with your first answer to me, and end with your last answer, but I would also post a link to this section of your talk page. I would then wait a few days for additional comments, and make the changes this weekend. Is this okay with you? Mburrell (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Fine with me. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Godsmack

I got nailed in here for using "Sugar, We're Goin' Down" with that reason to use it in FOB's article. The caption on one of these samples can really tell a lot about what encyclopedic purpose it has. Compare its current caption to that of "Speak", at least. I see no value or point in having that copyrighted material in there. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I finally get it. The concern is WP:NFCC, reason number 8 – "contextual significance". I agree that it would be difficult to name a strong need for the sound samples. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, Wednesday, September 28

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Hi folks,

We would like to invite you to this month's Bay Area WikiSalon. The last Wednesday evening of every month, Wikipedia and Wikimedia enthusiasts gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We will have no formal agenda to allow people to freely share ideas and perhaps learn about Wikipedia through hands-on editing. Co-organizer Ben Creasy will be looking at election-related articles to enhance the information available in the upcoming November elections.

Co-organizer Stephen LaPorte has suggested doing an upload-a-thon for Wiki Loves Monuments. Niki, the California coordinator for WLM will be in attendance. WLM is an annual event and the official dealine is Friday the 30th for submissions to count towards awards.

Or, you can grab a couch, a booth, or a stool and do your own thing.

Please note: You should register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on the I.D. part. This also helps us figure out how much food and drink to bring in! Feel free to stop by even if only to say a quick hello, but you might have to give us a last minute call if you forget to RSVP. Also, don't be shy about hitting us up if you have thoughts on future speakers or wiki-related activities.

For further details, please see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, September 2016. Mark your calendars now for the 3rd Wednesday in October, the 26th, when we will have a brief presentation.

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Rock for Choice dispute

On the Rock for Choice article, how come you keep reverting my edits that change the words "pro-choice" to "abortion rights"?

Generally the abortion related articles seem to use "abortion rights" rather than the polarizing term "pro-choice", which implies that someone against abortion is "anti-choice".

A response would be appreciated.--96.58.148.127 (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You changed "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion" which is spiteful, and the opposite of a "less polarizing term", since people who are in favor of legal access to abortion are not ever fans of abortion. They are not "pro-abortion"! Rather, they are in favor of abortion rights, or in favor of legal access to abortion. There may be a better choice of term to serve as a replacement for "pro-choice" but you didn't find one. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

How about we use the term "abortion rights". That seems to be a good alternative to "pro-choice".--96.58.148.127 (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)