User talk:Binksternet/Archive25

Thanks and question

Hello B. Thanks for taking the "bull by the horns" and acting on our consensus regarding the fields in infoboxes. I am wondering if we should also note this in somewhere on the MoS for the film or the filmmaker and actor project? Eventually that conversation will get archived and the link you are providing in your edit summary won't work. At the very least we will want to keep an eye on the archive number that it winds up in. Cheers and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 01:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am only a fair weather project member; though I can see how my actions made me a de facto member, at least yesterday and today. I have never put my name on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Participants list.

I agree that the consensus should be established in the project's MoS but I will leave that to project stalwarts.

Regarding the orphaning of talk page discussions after they move to archives, I think the wiki system should automatically create redirects for those. At any rate, I will try to keep an eye out for the archival of the thread, and I will seek to create the needed redirect at that time. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sounds good I also had a thought that we might use a FAQ section like we have here Talk:List of Doctor Who serials. So I'll propose that to them at some point. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 02:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Interaction analyzer

Thanks for indirectly informing me about the new tool; I had no idea it existed! I only remembered Intersect Contribs, which is nowhere near as cool. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You bet! I keep a link to the tool on my user page, down near the bottom right. It can take more than two users. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks also for the kudos on my CPC edits. Interested in working on anything on the worklist and/or suggesting other things that need to be done? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The hot weather here in Oakland must be affecting my drive—I'm gettin' lazy! The CPC article is not my area of expertise and I am loathe to don the hip waders and rubber gloves required for working on that topic. I applaud your efforts, but from the sidelines. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Trying to respond

I am trying to respond to "Favoring the Joelle Million Book?" on the Lucy Stone talk page but believe I have only succeeded posting it on my own talk page. I need your help. This is my first time participating in a Wikipedia talk session and I haven't figured out how to get where I need to be. I clicked on the site you emailed to me but that didn't work. Would you mind walking me through it?Jmillionjpostma (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see your reply posted on your own talk page. If you don't mind, I will move this reply to the Lucy Stone talk page which is at Talk:Lucy Stone. Your thoughtful reply merits attention from the other Wikipedia editors interested in Stone, not just you and me. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Miriam Battista

Wow, Binksternet, you're a wonder!! I can't thank you enough for sharing the great info you have on Miriam Battista, especially the Gladys Hall piece in Motion Picture. And thank you also for clarifying the Wikipedia policy on original research. That's counter-intuitive for me, since my writing in college demanded original research, which led me to several jobs that also made use of those skills. But I can now see that an encyclopedia needs to be based on secondary and tertiary sources. Sorry to have this realization so late in the game!

So I'll go back to my article with those criteria in mind and will revisit the published sources I consulted initially. If the rewritten article gets accepted, I'll owe you a huge bouquet of thanks.--Ailemadrah (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed that you actually cleaned up the article yourself and added a delightful summary of the Gladys Hall piece - double "Wow!" and infinite thanks!! I do have some info from second-party sources that I didn't use, so I'll see if I can fit that in without bloating the article. --Ailemadrah (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about bloating the article. The WP:Secondary sources are needed, I think, to get your article created.

I removed the primary research documents as references but the facts that they supported are still in the article. This last bit needs your hand. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

2012 Delhi gang rape case

Hi there Binkster. I am wondering if you would have any interest in helping with this article. I have asked Coretheapple for help as well. To save time I will just c/p my note to him.

Hi there Core, would you be interested in doing a copy edit for the 2012 Delhi gang rape case article? To my great surprise it has been nominated for a GA review and I have a high edit count for the article. My larger edits were mostly in the medical sections and reactions but I did a lot of copy edits as well because most of the active editors were Indians and it was, well, interesting... I welcome a review because I strongly believe that this tragic incident is as important to the woman's movement as the murder of Emmit Till was to the African Americans fight for justice. The problem is, the article seems to (perhaps) read like a tabloid account ("He ripped her intestines out with his bare hands..."). However, I learned that the English speaking news articles did report the incident in that manner, a manner in which it would have not been reported in the American press, and that's what there was to go with. Plus, it should be remembered that it is mostly their article. I'd appreciate any comments on that aspect of the article as well. Perhaps you would even like to help with the GA? I will also ask Binksternet to help with the review as I know that he has a lot of interest in woman's issues. Gandydancer (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A terrible incident! I will look at the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That was fast! Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

Hi.I notice your recent edit at Aam Aadmi Party has removed the Jan Lokpal Bill Protest mention.As source clearly state Janlokpal movement,not team anna .Pls revert it. Thanks . TY of ^Walk 20:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The source says Team Anna specifically. The point is that Arvind Kejriwal and Anna Hazare both worked within Team Anna.

The Jan Lokpal Bill is still in the paragraph, so that information is not gone. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Woman's National Loyal League article

Hi, I recently expanded the Woman's National Loyal League article (again) and also put a notice on its discussion page with my proposal to rename it to "Woman's Loyal National League". I see that you created a big chunk of the original article and also renamed the article yourself in 2009, so I wanted to call your attention to this situation in case you had comments. Also, thanks for keeping a close eye on the Susan B. Anthony article. That's another one I hope to upgrade before too long.--Bilpen (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the SBA bio needs a lot of help. I've been putting it off forever. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A big bouquet for you!

	Thanks for your generous help
	Thank you, Binksternet, for your generous help and wonderful additions to Miriam Battista, my first article. I aspire to someday be as helpful to other new editors as you have been to me. Ailemadrah (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Fuchida

Took Bennett less than 8 hours to replace your reasonable edit with a strongly anti-Parshall paragraph. Someone should do something about it. Tricericon (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. After four days spent deep in the Sierras out of contact with the internet, I have returned to correct the article and reply to Bennett. If you have any better way to state Bennett's position, feel free to propose it on the talk page, or just be bold and change it yourself. Cheers – Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually only check the page rarely. When I saw that someon had put words in my mouth I didn't believe, I felt I had to correct it. In March of 2012 you said, "Find me someone who cuts Parshall down in an equally respected publication and you'll have a point. Without backing from a reliable source, your assertions are useless for improving the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)" Apparently you're backpedaling, as when I have done exactly that and much more, you continue to revert to some watered down idea that I, nor other experts, believe. Unfortunately, many of the key people who know Fuchida's story and the history behind it the very best aren't Wikipedia editors and have seen how days or weeks of research can be wiped out in seconds online. If the page continues to be tampered with, removing opposing and highly qualified viewpoints, the page will become irrelevant. Please reconsider misrepresenting my position and that of many other experts who don't buy Parshall's theories and deleting both Parshall's and my carefully detailed outlines of the issue.

Binksternet, I'm requesting the intervention of administrators and experienced editors to have you banned from the Mitsuo Fuchida page: [[1]]--TMartinBennett (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Miriam Battista

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Pierre-Auguste Renoir 138

Another, bigger bouquet to thank you for your work on - and support of - this article. I'm thrilled beyond words to see it mentioned in DYK!! Ailemadrah (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the posies! I enjoyed helping you with your article, and it was great fun to find out what the old film fan rags had on her. Who can resist a child star? Binksternet (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

even though the fact of the hoax is well-established

I think it's misleading to say "even though the fact of the hoax is well-established." I don't believe we have any sources that actually go into it in any detail, hence the careful use of "hoax" within the article. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Harding, the president of the European Association of Archaeologists, said it is all false—pseudo-archaeology.[2] In April 2006, a letter by 21 scholars was published in Bosnia saying that the pyramids are a travesty of scholarship. Construction crews are turning the hills into Mayan-style pyramids rather than scientifically excavating them.[3] Zahi Hawass, secretary general of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, says the "pyramids" are just natural geologic formations.[4] Archaeologist Garrett Fagan, Pennsylvania State University, said the supposed archaeological work being done on the site was wrong, that it will likely destroy actual archaeological evidence. Mark Rose, editor of Archaeology magazine, said the whole thing was a hoax perpetrated by Osmanagic. Curtis Runnels, an archaeologist at Boston University in Massachusetts and a Balkan prehistory expert, said the evidence for the hills being pyramids was wholly insufficient, and that the humans in the area at the time were barely able to put up tents and make fires.[5] It is clear to me by a survey of real scholars that the pyramids are a hoax. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There are no pyramids. That's different than saying "the fact of the hoax is well-established." As I said, I don't believe we have any sources that actually go into detail. The reports are all very conservative in how they present the situation. We should too. --Ronz (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Varsity Trip

You recently pruned the Varsity Trip page significantly. I have since added some details that were covered in national press at the time (I have access to The Times archives but know that the event has also been covered in The Daily Telegraph and Evening Standard). Rather than spending time re-adding information that will only be removed as "non-notable", please can you advise what aspects of the trip are important enough. For instance, given that a the music events form a major part of the trip, I would feel that a table of headline acts (as per the line-up tables on music festival pages) are a reasonable inclusion. Similarly, it could be argued that a list of past winners/trip venues (as per http://varsityrace.com/history.html) is relevant. —SnowAddict (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

My view is that only WP:SECONDARY sources should be used for article text and tables, so that removes tables derived from varsityrace.com, which certainly can be an external link. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Miss Calypso

Hey Binks, I didn't notice it until yesterday, when this article got passed to GA, but I see that you made some additions to this article. Your source was some editions of Variety from 1956. Do you have access to those sources? I'd really like to see them, not only for this article, but for some other Angelou articles. Thanks, I appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Variety changed its online presence some time between April and now, to make it more difficult for non-subscribers to see archived articles. I was looking at them through Google books, but now they are not available that way.

I imagine the trouble will clear up if I subscribe, but I'm not 100% certain. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Golly, if it's going to cost you anything, don't bother. Is there any way you have access to the complete citations for those issues? I think we can use the info, but it's always better to have complete citations, doncha know. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

All of the work I did in researching Variety is lost to me now. There are no "complete citations" for me to bring forward, unless I drive 365 miles to UCLA's library and check out the archives, or pay to subscribe to Variety's online archives. (The paid subscription route suddenly looks reasonable!) One other option is to find another editor who has a subscription. If you check out the page history of the new article Miriam Battista you will see that someone filled in some Variety cites for me. Contact that editor and you might have an answer. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked the new editor there whether she has a subscription to Variety and the answer was no. Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

BP again

Hi Binksternet,

I'm very aware you're busy, and have already stopped by today, but we are re-considering earlier versions of the DWH section to use as a placeholder whilst RfCs are ongoing. I brought to the BP talk a section you created back in December to speak this very thing and wondered if you might want to comment, as editors with no/little history at the page seem to hold sway these days (an unfortunate side effect of RfCs), resulting in suggestions that just don't make sense, like rationalizing miniscule coverage of ugly stuff, but no mention at all of trimming, for instance, the giant section about the defunct alternative energy program. Same ole. petrarchan47tc 21:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

good tragic story
Thank you for telling us a stunning tragic story about architecture and values, a pinnacle in your consistent writing and reviewing of Good articles, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 180th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, - I should add featured articles now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Why, thank you! That article is one I am quite proud of, one I keep returning to for another perusal. You make happy to know someone else appreciates the work! Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at JMOprof's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cost me $16.95 at the Kindle store ☺ JMOprof (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Murray Korman

Just took a look at the article. It article looks good. You did well.Jacqke (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. The article is a group effort, the result of all of our work. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Khazar

This is your only warning. If you continue to edit war without discussing and gaining consensus on the talk page, you will be blocked. Thanks. —Dark 15:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for riding herd on that article; it needs some calming down. As you can see my involvement is just one revert of disputed text after which I immediately started a discussion. I also called for full page protection. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Murray Korman

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

False Accusations of Rape

No current edit war

Yesterday, you sent me a message indicating that I am currently involved in an edit war. I have not been involved in an edit war since July 14th. Also, I hope Roscelese receives the same message because she's been reverting my edits as well. Astrohoundy |

I sent you a warning about the three-revert rule which you may not have known about. I don't want to see you blocked. I did not warn Roscelese because it was you who was violating the WP:No original research rule, which is another hard-and-fast rule on Wikipedia. By deleting your original research, Roscelese was following proper Wikipedia guidelines regarding content. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100,000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100,000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100,000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 13:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow! That's a lot of vandal reversion and warnings. And a lot of minor corrections to text I should have gotten right in the first place! Binksternet (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow indeed. To use an old Oz expression: (Good) On yer! Congratulations, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

...Another milestone is coming up: six years on Wikipedia, that mark being eleven days from now. Binksternet (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"Been there, done that." (However, no-one gave me a T-Shirt ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(A.K.A.: Personally, I think 100k is "just a wee bit" more significant, and deserving of greater recognition.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well Done!!!! Capitalismojo (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, and I enjoyed reading your new bio -- it's nice to wiki-meet you! I'll have one of my own someday, but probably not until after I graduate. Cheers, a13ean (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, congrats indeed. Your work here is much appreciated. As for Legolas, I still wonder whether it was the denouement or the death of one of their favourite stars that caused them to disappear. - Sitush (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I would enjoy meeting you all! Regarding Legolas, my best guess is that the disappearance is from the embarrassment of being caught in falsehood—a lot of it. Binksternet (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN Notice

You were named as a party to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Battle of Kursk#Use of term Blitzkrieg. While you don't have to participate, it would be nice for you to stop in and give any thoughts you may have about this dispute, including what I believe the best method for forward progress is. Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Dark Passage

Look, let's not be silly about this. You and the IP could very well be right about the house still existing -- I'm not in San Francisco and I can't check it out, but you must get a reliable source to say so, it's simply not enough to rely on your own knowledge -- you've been around a long time and you must know that is totally WP:OR.

So look:

• TCM is a reliable source
• TCM Notes, quoting an unnamed contemporary source, says that "Irene's house" was torn down after the Loma Prieta quake
• The only thing they can be referring to is the exterior of the house, since almost all Hollywood films of this period had their interiors filmed in the studio, and it would have been extremely unusual (and therefore notable) for a unit to set up inside a building in San Francisco to do interiors. Much more normal, and usual (and therefore would not be noted) is for the exteriors to all be done on location at one time, and all the interior shooting to be done at WB's studios in Burbank

All that put together means that the current statement in the article is sourced and needs to be let alone. As I said, it could well be wrong (we don't know what source TCM is relying on), but if so, it needs to be replaced by more accurate sourced information. Removing information back by a reliable source just is not a good idea.

Please do some research. If the building is still standing, it's undoubtedly listed somewhere on a compilation of information about Hollywood filming sites in S.F. I have a book that covers that topic for NYC, perhaps there's one for San Francisco as well. In the meantime, until you get the source, please don't remove the sourced information again. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not read the article I wrote about the Malloch Building at 1360 Montgomery Street, and perhaps you have not seen the photos I took of it. Perhaps you deleted my most recent addition without looking at the reelsf.com reference that I brought, one with then-and-now photos comparing 1947 film frames with recent shots of the building. Perhaps you have not seen the film and its use of the actual building lobby for some scenes, and the actual building elevator, rather than a studio set.

My main point is that the TCM reference is terribly weak, and wrong besides. Its assertion was made on the basis of unnamed "modern sources", which cannot be found. On the other hand, Fodors says you can go visit the building right now. SFGate said in 2009 that it was standing proud. Architectural historian Therese Poletti wrote in 2012 how the building is still a fine example of its type. Old House Interiors profiled the building in 1999, with newly shot photos. The Architectural Guide to the city says the building was standing in 2007. Who would you rather believe? TCM's weak assertion or photographic and eyewitness evidence from after 1989? Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I have not read your article about the building. I'm sure it's quite interesting. Do you have a reliable source that says that the building was used for the filming of the movie? If so, it's quite easy to insert the information into the article, with the source, and there's no further problem from me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the citations. I wrongly reverted your latest edit because I didn't realize that you had added them, but I self-reverted a few minutes later, my apologies for that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 <sup>(Talk•Sign)</sup> 13:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Belated whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

As per WP:Secondary, the whole "Agenda" section has to be removed and it makes things worse. Please inspect the page and reverts again. Hope to see you at AAP talk page - Tall.kanna (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the situation, Binksternet. In a somewhat bizarre twist to the tale, Guy Macon seems to think that you were right but I am not, hence the nice red edit warring notice on my talk page and a threat to get admins involved! Talk about not being able to please everyone all of the time, it seems I can't please a lot of people any of the time ... - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like good training for a seat in politics. I'd vote for you! Binksternet (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

LOL! - Sitush (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Factual dispute on Ohain

I would like some help here. You have stated that I am slanting my evidence regarding this topic and use IIIraute. I am unsure how you can slant facts. Can you help? There seems to be a complete lack of understanding regarding the burden of proof and how evidence is submitted. I have supplied excerpts from sources with first person information - not opinions How is this unacceptable? Also citing sources that offer unsupported opinions is not appropriate. I can cite many books that say Bigfoot is real or God is real but no one has any evidence to underpin the opinion. IIIrautes own statements undermine his argument. He admits that Ohain had read Whittle's patent prior to 1935 but then says Ohain was unaware of it. Which is it?

I would appreciate some help on this. I am an academic, lecturer and aviation specialist with 30 years of experience and a Masters Degree in this area. I know a little about overturning misconceptions.

If the evidence I have offered can be proven to be false I will cease editing the pages. Over to you.

Thanks for your helpCompleteaerogeek (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand Wikipedia. It is not the place to argue about primary sources such as Ohain's own writing. This writing has been variously interpreted by WP:SECONDARY sources which are what Wikipedia prefers. We tell the reader what the secondary sources have determined about Ohain. We do not interpret the Ohain text on our own. Binksternet (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Editing

I received your message and this is actually a shared IP, so I'll register an account. I'm actually not the Astrohoundy user who made the initial edits. I will make an account though. False_accusation_of_rape Apologies for leaving unsigned message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.19.237 (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Policy development

You are more than welcome to comment on Ground rules.HotHat (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing up my freeway section in Decline of Detroit.

You seem to be very prolific. I keep running across your edits everywhere from submarines to Snowden. You're always the voice of reason. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Charm school fund?

Hmmh .. . One might think that YOU, Bink, were stalking our colleague Roscelese. Have you run a statistical analysis on the number of times that YOU have "followed her into an article," or into an administrative hearing, albeit to come to her rescue. The gallant knight faithfully serving his fair lady or prearranged meatpuppetry, take your pick. Either way, I suspect Miss Roscelese is grateful. And on the premise that nasty delinquents are better reformed by those they admire or have reason to admire, perhaps you could start a charm school fund for her and encourage her to take advantage of the offer. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to follow up with the meat puppet accusation, WP:SPI is your venue. Failing that, I will allow this ill-advised note to fade slowly into the background noise. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, WP:SPI has nothing to do with meat puppetry, but you do seem to be on a roll in regards to giving terrible advice. Arkon (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You might be surprised to know that WP:SOCK includes information about meat puppets, and that the behavior of two or more accounts is a big factor at SPI. An SPI case I filed recently resulted in two different people blocked for meat puppetry: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astrohoundy/Archive. Best wishes... Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOCK may, however even the linked WP:SPI case has a CU confirming (and the sock confirming they are using the same IP address). Still wrong, I'm afraid. Arkon (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a meat puppetry case where two people were sharing an internet connection, using the same IP address. One person edited in a manner suggesting that they were recruited by the other editor. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It was a case of someone being busted using multiple accounts, and trying to save themselves by claiming it was separate people. If you follow WP:MEAT you will see that they may fall under the same umbrella, but it is not necessary, and that checkuser, and WP:SPI are pointless for when they don't share IP's. I see no accusation that you share IP's. Arkon (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, do you really need to be shown all the SPI cases where meatpuppetry was on the table? Try Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Einsteindonut/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mariordo/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Curvesall/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brainbug666/Archive, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive/1. If you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance, you'll note that it says both sock and meat puppetry cases will be treated the same by Wikipedia. Specific to your accusation about me and Roscelese, it says "Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another." Welcome to the world of established user Binksternet agreeing with a lot of what established user Roscelese believes. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 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 Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

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) 15:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Brief Apology and Appreciation

Sorry about not being so neutral in the Yoon Chang-Jung article. Thanks for the heads up. Will be more careful next time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinyeom1023 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for caring enough to look at the WP:NPOV guideline. I hope you adjust your text to have a more neutral tone. Binksternet (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment

Hi, would you like to elaborate on your !vote? :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 01:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hoax region of California

Greetings! I saw on your user page that you have dealt with hoaxes on Wikipedia, and I am hoping you can help me. Over a month ago I found a page named Upstate California which is a long entry with many internal links for a non-existent region of the state. At first I thought it was a legitimate page, but I became suspicious after I updated a dead link. My edit was reverted with a reason about "governmental rivalry." Because of the odd reason, and his claim that my questions had been covered on the talk page, which they weren't, I read the article more carefully, read every one of the links, did a web search, and wrote the page creator a few questions on his talk page. His reply was off topic and defensive, an attitude other User_talk:Ikluft#Your_Upstate_California_revert editors have noticed about his relationship with this page.

Subsequently, I did a thorough Google search and all I could find was

• (1) the Wiki article Upstate California,
• (2) a forum asking for information on the term,[6]
• (3) a link to the Upstate economic development council "UEDC" which is cited in the article, [7]. That entity is not a real economic development agency which are governmental bodies, but instead an alleged 501.3.c non-profit, complete with a donate button. I called their phone number and it only rings, there was no reply or messaging system. I checked the IRS non-profit lookup with that name and address, and was unable to verify if they ever even applied for a 501.3.c. The Wiki page claims they've been around since the 1970s, I would think that more would be found than mentions in various minutes such as the Eureka citation which only say "attend meeting with Upstate ...", the link from Pacific Gas and Electric saying they donated $10,000 for a conference and the opinion piece by a local politician which only mentions that she attended the event; and
• (4) a link to the Upstate California Connect Consortium which operates in a group of different counties (Lake, Colusa, Glenn, Sutter and Yuba Counties) [8] than are given on the Upstate California page and accompanying map [9], but UCCC is an official entity with many news articles and governmental citations.[10][11]

My concerns fall into the following categories:

• Establishment of the name: The use of the name is based on two newspaper articles, one from the San Francisco Chronicle, and the other from the New York Times. The name seems to have been a short-lived minor marketing campaign in reality which has expanded to a regional empire on Wikipedia.
• Citations & dead links: The New York Times article describing it as a marketing campaign name has quotes from others who have not heard or do not use the term. The other citations are actually brief mentions in obscure publications, none have solid information about the area or the UEDC which has supposedly been in operation for over 30 years. Nearly every link in the section Notes is dead.
• Pages that link to it: Looking at Pages that link to Upstate California I saw few quality links to other articles, but that a template had been created that put this term on many pages, even though few wiki pages of substance linked to Upstate California. I have since changed that template to direct to "Northern California" which is the official term for the region. No one has commented on that change, or changed it back.
• Prior problems with the term: An interesting discussion occurred four years ago prior to the category being renamed or merged back into Northern California. The Category:Upstate California is presently empty with a note about its prior deletion at the top of the page.
• Standard regions: The regions of California do not include "Upstate." I find only a subset of one government agency in California that mentions "Upstate" but I cannot find the use on their own website, merely in sites that claim to list governmental information.[12]
• Notes section: The Notes section contains information about the UEDC, most of the links are dead and the remainder contain little to no information about any "support" or activities of the UEDC.
• History of hoaxing: The page creator has apparently created at least one other "Upstate" page for another U.S. state, User_talk:Ikluft#AfD_nomination_of_Upstate_Connecticut which was subsequently discussed and deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upstate Connecticut.
• Definition of hoaxing:Wiki defines hoaxing as "It is considered a hoax if it was a clear or blatant attempt to make up something, as opposed to libel, vandalism or a factual error." I believe that the page "Upstate California" falls under this definition.

Previously I wrote these issues to another wiki editor. Unfortunately he hasn't been very active of late, and I don't know what to do with this information, so when I saw you had dealt with a hoax previously, I thought to ask for your help. Any assistance you can render in this regard will be most gratefully appreciated. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your note to me. Not only am I interested in hoaxes but I am interested in California's geopolitics. I will begin to look into the problems you descibe. There might be a drastic fix—heroic medicine so to speak—or there might be a way to work with the topic after judicious trimming. My first impulse is to redirect the mess to Northern California, but I should read all the sources before jumping in. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Rather than nominating the article for deletion, I felt that it was notable as a short-lived marketing campaign, even though the effort failed to gain traction. Instead, I greatly reduced the article. The critical point is that the article must be about a marketing campaign rather than a geographic region. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you that's a big improvement! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1

Have I addressed your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Itsbydesign. Thank you.

Hammond Organ

Thanks for the support in clearing up this article. In case it's not obvious, I try and go for getting one article up to good article status a month, and I think this is my next target. I'm a semi-pro musician doing about 50-60 shows a year and the Hammond has been my keyboard instrument of choice for decades (although these days I use a Nord Stage 2). I've got a few books to source and a lot of copyediting, but hopefully it'll be in good shape shortly. If you're interested in helping out, let me know. Ritchie333 <sup>(talk) (cont)</sup> 16:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to help out. It's good to see actual references and cited text replace original research and patchwork editing.

I would like to offer my services as GAN reviewer, but the instructions say that a reviewer must not have made significant edits to the article. I have edited it many times to remove poor text and images but never to add significant text or images. I don't know for sure whether this frequent removal activity of mine counts as "significant", but a conservative reading of the rules would have me refrain from reviewing. Instead, I can do a thorough peer review, especially if you take the article to WP:PR to start a formal review. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm slowly working my way through Vail's book, which is the definitive source for this. Next job is to convert all the model lists to prose, which I can do from that source, plus a quick scan through Google Books for a second opinion (though for early pre B3 models, that might be difficult). Hopefully a couple of evening's work will get it in shape for GA in about a week or two. We can revisit the question of whether you're okay to review it on WT:GAN when we're in that state - right now, it's still nowhere near there yet, although the bits I've done (which should be obvious as they've got lots of sources in them) should be better. Ritchie333 <sup>(talk) (cont)</sup> 18:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I blew through the article to tweak wording and make little MOS changes. I think because of its subject the article should be in US English spelling as well as US date style (dmy). It feels pretty complete—I have nothing to say about what might be missing from the article. Great work! Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Carolmooredc has given you a kitten for being such a clear headed guy! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

My favorite part of kittenhood is the needle-sharp teeth and claws combined with animal innocence. :)

Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Genius... User:Carolmooredc 01:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The F6F AND the F4U DID use the same basic engine as the T-Bolt did...

Dear Binksternet:

The PIPE Here...and in relation to the text you "deleted" from the P-47 T-bolt page, which reads as follows:

..."the same basic engine as used on the U.S. Navy's F4U Corsair and F6F Hellcat fighters, but with the addition of a turbocharger in its rear fuselage for even more engine power."...

...you MIGHT want to first check both the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 page, and the pages for the Corsair and Hellcat before making such a "correction" (?!?) as, except for the T-Bolt's turbocharger, the same basic type of P&W 18-cylinder mill, the Double Wasp, was used on all three aircraft, but with different induction systems between the T-Bolt versus the two naval aircraft, as regards similar text on the F6F...

"The Grumman F6F Hellcat was a carrier-based fighter aircraft conceived to replace the earlier F4F Wildcat in United States Navy (USN) service. Although the F6F resembled the Wildcat, it was a completely new design,[4] powered by a 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800, the same powerplant used for both the Navy's earlier Chance Vought F4U Corsair and the United States Army Air Force's (USAAF) Republic P-47 Thunderbolt fighters."

Please check FIRST before reverting such an edit, as the Double Wasp radial mill WAS used on all three airframe types during World War II.

Thanks in advance and Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My concern was not whether it was true, the fact you added, but how it was inserted so clumsily. The reading flow should be a primary consideration. The fact about the shared engine is not so important that it needs to be presented in the first paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Another Chowkat sock

Hey, Binksternet. Hope all is well with you and yours. I think I've found yet another Chowkat sock and since my SPIs are almost always denied I thought I would ask you if you would be willing to write one up. Any interest? If not, thats okay. Cheers! GabeMc <sup>(talk|contribs)</sup> 20:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have been watching this person and wondering about him being a sockpuppet. Let me think about putting together a strong SPI, otherwise there is no use in trying. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it just me, or does this edit (and the editor) seem a little too familiar? GabeMc <sup>(talk|contribs)</sup> 03:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

• As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions02:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Help please

Hey there Bink, I thought of you today as I again review the Yodeling article which I mostly wrote. I've always loved Jimmie Rogers, but while working on the article, to my surprise it slowly emerged that it was the African American influence that actually created American yodeling, which is somewhat different than Alpine yodeling. I know that you have an interest in music and have an expert critical eye, and I am wondering if you'd take a look at the article and offer feedback--if you have any. Some parts may seem a little garbled because it was only as I continued with my research that I realized the African American roots of American yodeling. Perhaps you are too busy with other projects, and that is understandable. Gandydancer (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm working at an online gaming gig in Vegas this week, but we in the audio department often have some waiting-around time while the organizers get organized about what they are going to do next on stage. I'll take a look. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I put something on the talk page about 19th century African American practice. I think the African origin of the yodel should be given equal or at least parallel treatment. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The problem was that when I first began to work on the article I had no idea about the African American roots, and had to work it into the existing information in bits and pieces as I slowly learned more about it. It is like so much of our version of American history, for instance until only recently Americans have not been aware that George Washington Carver was not the only American "negro" of accomplishment (the victors write the history...). Any further comments will be appreciated. Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ted Andrews

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1 is now three weeks old and has now had over 250KB of discourse. I don't think I have ever been involved in an FAC like this. As I stated at the beginning of this FAC, Whaam! will experience the 50th anniversary of its first exhibition on September 28 that I hope can be celebrated at WP:TFAR. Before that, however, we must make a decision on the quality of this article here at WP:FAC. Please consider making a Support or Oppose decision some time soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an unanswered point I brought up about David McCarthy's comment about "winning hearts and minds". Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I gave the article my Support. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and... audiocassettes

Greetings Binksternet. Just seen your edit at Gramophone record and it occurs to me that that bit about audiocassettes might be valid (if sourced). I don't know enough about the subject (other than original research) to do anything about it, but as you seem to, maybe you could add something along those lines. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the user's text might be valid but so much was not. I will take a look around to see if the audiocassette assertion can be supported by RS. Binksternet (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard

Hello Bink. Please review WP:COI. I have no conflict of interest in any of the articles I edit here and I hope you will moderate the tone in which you address me on WP. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

COI says "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." You are advancing outside interests rather than providing a neutral biography of Rothbard for the reader. Your behavior is perversely obstinate as evinced by your continual refusal to allow wording which portrays Rothbard primarily as an important leader of the Austrian School. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Bink, I have no such "outside interests." If you believe otherwise, please state whatever it is to which you refer. Per policy, even if you (erroneously) believe that I am biased, the policy clearly states that bias does not constitute COI, so your assertions of COI are not appropriate. You refer to my "continued refusal to allow wording...?" The fact is that I initiated an RfC -- that is the epitome of good WP process and has nothing to do with refusal. Please don't attack me. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet: FYI this long diff of a lot of removed Steeletrap talk page material does have discussion of possible academic conflict of interest for Steeletrap. Unless I missed it, SPECIFICO only has stated [at this diff I am an "Austrian School" economist trained before the Mises Institute... Now he could be a PhD economist who has worked as a dock worker for 30 years or he could be Paul Krugman. We don't know. In both cases the POV editing is so disruptive that it's not really necessary to prove COI unless it slaps us in the face with some obvious admission of COI. User:Carolmooredc 12:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

{{od}Bink: I've just seen your recent post on BLPN. I need to ask you: Please state your concerns and discuss text and policy without the repeated presumptions, aspersions, and disparagement of other editors. It is unnecessary and it disrupts the discussion of content which is necessary to resolution of disputed text and references. Please do not frame the discussion in terms of your beliefs about other editors, and please use diffs to document any specific behavior you believe is problematic. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you...

Sorry to bother you, quick question: I went through, for the first time, WP:RA and found a person, Daniel Somers, for whom an article was requested. So I made it up, but do I need to do anything at WP:RA to register that the RA has been started as requested? LudicrousTripe (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not seeing the article request at WP:RA. If I had found it, I would have removed it because the article is now created. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

MFDWarning

Was it necessary to template a user of +4,500 edits -- Really? †TE†Talk 21:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Two things:

1 – That template is created automatically when you nominate a page for deletion. I had nothing to do with its format or content.

2 – I do template veteran users when I wish to do so, for instance to get their attention in a hurry. Check out the essay User:DESiegel/Template the regulars for some arguments supporting that stance. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thought there was an option to add detail or trim the more condescending stuff down before saving the page. Maybe not. I'm guessing you've fielded these concerns before judging by your quick link in defense of templating vet editors. That's your prerogative. Just figured it needed to be said. †TE†Talk 22:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Compact disc

Hm, actually, where is "Compact disc" coming from? And why does the article start off as "compact disc", then? The logo, at best, says "COMPACT disc", and it's pretty much a graphic-only thing like so many other things. Despatche (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I recommend discussing this at the article talk page. Lots of folks will chime in, eventually. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sam Peckinpah Article

Why did you roll my tag back??? You found none of the suggestions I made useful. or you just personally hate me???User:JCHeverly 19:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I put your comments on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ad-hom

Have you any proof whatsoever for this bizarre claim/personal attack beyond the misinterpretations of a self-confessed POV-pusher? I challenged your identical ad-hom attack at RS/N and you've conveniently ignored it. You seem happy to heap baseless accusations on top of baseless accusations but don't seem keen to back them once they are queried. Despite the crocodile tears and feigned hysteria, Carol hasn't once been able to substantiate any of her claims about me and has since retracted some, admitted she didn't understand the context of others and misinterpreted other comments entirely. Yet you continue to attack me on the basis of her now-discredited "evidence" and won't provide any of your own. Stalwart111 01:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You started out as a helpful editor guiding Steeletrap through Wikipedia's minefields; you were the first person to edit Steeletrap's talk page on April 17, 2013, and also the first to edit Steeletrap's user page. You were doing well as a guide until April 20, 2013, when you suggested the "walled garden" interpretation of the Mises Institute biographies. You repeated this the next day, and the walled garden meme has ever since been part of the conversation between SPECIFICO, Steeletrap and yourself. Your own admitted lack of knowledge about economics was the problem—you did not bother to look further afield for more sources. By April 22 you were effectively in the camp of SPECIFICO and Steeletrap, agreeing with them that any book published by the Mises Institute should be removed. You repeatedly supported them in their removals of academic achievements, all while they added more negative information. Binksternet (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether you're being serious or deliberately obtuse and evasive. You personally attacked me with nothing more than your interpretation of Carol's bizarre claims (many since withdrawn, though she continued with different nonsense again today). Yes, I welcomed him, as I've done for many new editors into whom I've run at AFD. I've explained my position with regard to WP:WALLED and walled garden several times (you have conveniently skipped over that explanation; Carol, having used it to attack me, has now acknowledged she didn't understand it at all). I didn't agree with them - they agreed with me.

Did you even read that diff you posted? All I suggested was that they "seem[ed] like valid concerns". The stuff before that was written by SPECIFICO. Prior to that, I raised a broad concern about a small group of articles being a closed system (a walled garden) based on their common sourcing, circular referencing and common genesis (what you childishly refer to as a "meme").

You skim-read (from the looks of it) pages and pages and pages of discussion, decided you liked Carol's completely unsubstantiated accusations and decided to remake them somewhere else in a more coherent fashion (something she has so far failed to do). I maintain you have absolutely no basis for your claims:

1. That I have suggested that, "anybody connected with the Mises Institute should not be counted as reliable sources". Especially since I have argued the opposite several times, including with Steeletrap and SPECIFICO.

2. With regard to any of the conclusions you drew from this discussion which you seem to have completely misinterpreted.

3. That I have argued anything with regard to the massive list of articles you claim I have included in my commentary, despite the fact that I've never even read, let alone edited, most of them.

4. That I have anywhere been responsible for, "unbalancing some biographies of people associated with the Mises Institute".

Do you have anything at all to substantiate your ridiculous personal attacks beyond Carol's own (and now completely discredited) personal attacks? Or did it just seem like a fun thing to do at the time? Beyond anything else (given you "evidence" above), how is my highlighting a concept/user essay justification enough for your accusations (especially at numbers 1, 3 and 4 above)? Stalwart111 09:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we may have a WP:Competence issue on our hands, Stalwart. The constant personal attacks and erroneous accusations (in the case of carol, so blatantly erroneous that they are often "retracted") from user:Binksternet and user:carolmooredc are making it impossible for us to effectively function as editors in these Misesian articles. You are for instance accused of wanting to delete all Misesian sources from Wikipedia (a position no one has endorsed) because you asked user:SPECIFICO to specify inappropriate or "bad" sources that should be removed from Mises articles. (When you asked that question, you had not endorsed her conception of "bad" sources; and afterwards you maintained strong disagreements.) Steeletrap (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You are free to think what you like about my competence, but you should note I have developed a very wide range of high- and top-quality articles for Wikipedia, many of which are on topics that were entirely new to me at the beginning of my writing. I'm a quick study and I'm confident if I began to write about, say, Murray Rothbard, I would be able to get the career and the controversy across to the reader in a clear and straightforward manner. Right now I have a lot of other tasks in real life and on Wikipedia so I have not been writing about the Austrians. My main problem with you and SPECIFICO (and Stalwart111 as enabler) is the vitriol you demonstrate against the Misesians who you work to minimize or muzzle. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Bink: You really need to stop falsely attributing undocumented actions and bad faith motives to other editors. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by to visit. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Matched only by the vitriol you and Carol demonstrate against fellow editors. Stalwart111 02:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2

Since you supported FAC1, your opinion is quite welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ringo Starr FA review

First off, thanks much for the review. Your suggestions have already improved the quality of the article. Regarding en and em dashes, can you please provide a little more detail/examples. This is one area where it takes me ten times as much effort as others because my eyes have trouble spotting the problems. Also, FWIW, I never use dashes myself, so any that are in the article were added by others. Cheers! GabeMc <sup>(talk|contribs)</sup> 23:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

For me, it takes ten times as much effort to explain the problem. I will instead jump in and correct it. The spaced en dash is somewhat more British than the unspaced em dash, so I will homogenize the article using the former. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Image of 1953 Iranian coup d'état

The image was apparently removed by you, I don't think that's a good reason to remove it only because the month is usually hot. I found a source that has used the same image to represent the coup: [13] (the third image, see also the other two images in which people have worn coats) so I think we can use the image. By the way, I removed the image that you added at the lead, because that was obviously undue weight. --Z 16:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What makes you say that the photo of Tehran men celebrating on at tank and in the street is undue weight? The street protesters were the reason that the coup succeeded. They were an essential part of the coup. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

:) My main comment is about the previous image and that it was a valid picture, as we have a source for it now (forget the rest of the comment for now) --Z 17:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would rather see the men-on-tank image returned to the article. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the accidental rollback! Larger fingers, small mobile screen. a13ean (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No sweat! Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Those street protestors who captured Mossadegh's huose etc. and were an essential part of the coup, were a bunch of CIA-paied thugs.[14] Putting an image of "Iranian people celebrating" the coup at the beggining of the article looks like a propaganda to me. --Z 06:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There were a few paid thugs but a lot more unpaid citizens in the streets. The first coup attempt failed on the night of August 15. There were thousands of protesters in the streets of Tehran on the morning of August 16, and they can be grouped into three main categories: supporters of the National Front, supporters of the Tudeh Party, and unaffiliated civilians. According to Mark J. Gasiorowski, about $50,000 was spent by the CIA to hire street protesters posing as Tudeh Party members who "then began to attack symbols of monarchy on August 17" in an attempt to destabilize the situation. There were also actual Tudeh members in this crowd. Maziar Behrooz writes that "a broad array of emotionally charged, spontaneous activities" happened in the streets of Tehran during August 16–18.[15] Later interviews of actual Tudeh Party members who were demonstrating in the streets show that they were unaware of any fake Tudeh protesters paid by the CIA. It is unclear how successful was the CIA's $50,000, whether it had zero influence, a little influence, or a lot of influence. Either way, the money served only as a kernel or trigger of protest which was greatly expanded by spontaneous protesters who were not paid. You would hardly believe it today but lots of Iranian people were unhappy with Mosaddegh's actions by August 1953.

During talks on August 17, the Tudeh Party decided to radically switch positions from supporting the Pahlavi monarchy through the constitutional government headed by Mosaddegh, to calling for the overthrow of the monarchy. Worried about an overthrow attempt, the government ordered the military into the streets to arrest hundreds of Tudeh leaders. By the evening of August 18, Mosaddegh ordered the military to clear the streets of all protesters. The CIA had given up the coup by this time—they were packing up and leaving rather than directing further coup attempts. On August 19, pro-Shah demonstrators (who did not have any additional CIA payments or instructions) filled the streets, preventing the Tudeh or National Front from defending Mosaddegh, and Mosaddegh was overthrown. Abbas Milani says many of these new protesters were stimulated into action by the clerics, who were afraid of the irreligious ideas put forward by the communistic Tudeh, and preferred the traditional monarchy to communist revolution.

So the pro-Shah street protesters were the ones who made coup happen. The photo shows them celebrating. It is quite appropriate for the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

B-Roll

Please to not remove the added B-Roll trailer section. This is the most mainstream use of the term today and the most likely reason people would search for it providing a need functional use which is why we edit. If you think the use of the term is inappropriate complain to the movie studios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeterson101 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia relies on WP:Reliable sources to support facts such as you are asserting here. Personally, I'm an audio engineer and I hear the term b-roll refer to footage that is aimed at audience and scenery rather than at the main subject of interest. Despite yours and my interpretations, the point is that we need a reliable source or your paragraph will be removed. The link you provided as a typical B-roll trailer proves nothing about it being typical, so it should be removed even if you supply a reliable source for the paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR

Hi, this is a note to inform you that a page in which you have previously shown interest, WP:FOUR, has been nominated for deletion. Your comments would be appreciated. Thank you! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hi Michael,

I've received your messages regarding my recent edits, and I can understand your concerns regarding soapboxing on some of the edits that we have made.

If the language used is not appropriate, I am willing to use a tone that is less "commercial"

However, I believe the placement of a link to Fueled is justified. Insofar as Fueled's work with these companies (most notably JackThreads and Ideeli) is significant to those companies' business ventures. Futhermore, Fueled's wiki page is an orphan, which should have more links from other wikis pointing to them.

I can source news articles from reputable sources to prove the notability of these projects.

Please respond to my message so that I have some guidance to do this right. Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilannassimi (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"Reputable" sources should actually be WP:Reliable sources, ones that are not simply PR announcements from Fueled, associated firms, or PR tools such as PR Newswire. You will want to look for WP:SECONDARY sources to support the facts.

The promotional tone violates Wikipedia's WP:PEACOCK guideline, part of the Manual of Style. For instance, your addition to Charitybuzz called Fueled "a leading mobile and web app developing company", which is puffery, and you described the app as "sleek and effortless"—more puffery.

For JackThreads, you delivered 'facts' that were not supported by the supplied references. For instance, you said that the JackThreads app "reached over 100,000 downloads in its first month." The supporting reference says that the app was launched that very day (January 24, 2012) which means the reference absolutely cannot support a statistic for one month later. Next, you said that JackThreads "hit a major milestone in their history; surpassing 3 million members." This supposedly "major" point is an artificial "milestone" which is merely routine news coverage. See WP:ROUTINE.

For Discovery Communications, you added text sourced only to Fueled's own PR announcements. Secondary sources are needed. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Noted. I will try again and follow your advice. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilannassimi (talk • contribs) 17:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Attack on Pearl Harbor

I expect that you know that your edits at Attack on Pearl Harbor constitute unnecessary edit warring. I blocked the other guy because he clearly has a history of edit warring, but you're not helping either. -- Mufka <sup>(u) (t) (c)</sup> 23:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, and thank you for blocking CJK. I see that he was behaving poorly at Talk:Alger Hiss and Talk:Iraq War, which does not give him much leeway. I'm sorry I did not bring the dispute to the article's talk page sooner. Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		One simple edit, which could have been done – so easily – by someone else, has earned you this Barnstar. Again, I say, Bravo! – S. Rich (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I like that: the Barnstar of Condemnation of Other, Because Other Has Not Lifted a Finger, But You Came In and Did His Job. Definitely worth a smile. :)

Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hammond Organ

This article is now being reviewed at Talk:Hammond organ/GA1, and there's a laundry list of issues. I'm kind of mostly offline for the next few days, so if you fancy helping tackling some of them, that would be very much appreciate. Ritchie333 <sup>(talk) (cont)</sup> 08:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I will keep an eye out. Binksternet (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of highly credible RS material on Murray Rothbard

Hey Bink. Please revert your mass deletion of material on Murray Rothbard based on the following "edit summary": (1) "Revert... this is all primary sourcing, not shown to be significant by analysis from third party observers." All of that is flagrantly false; the "primary source" assertion of Rothbard is not only addressed but quoted in the Gene Callahan secondary RS, published in the respected journal Politics, Philosophy and Economics, which is cited in the Rothbard entry. Your wrongheaded deletion makes the material that follows almost incomprehensible. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point, that the subsequent Callahan paragraph makes no sense without the preceding paragraph. Let me figure out what would be a better approach for neutral balance and less weight. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] I hope I am mistaken Bink, but I see your response as mostly ignoring policy based concerns: i.e. your mass-deletion of material quoted and addressed in high quality RS. Please undo that deletion immediately, or I will be forced to regard your conduct as disruptive. Steeletrap (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Bink, please undo your erroneous deletion and propose any preferred alternative on talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Bink, I have posted to RSN regarding your (and other users') deletion or distortion of the RS content on Rothbard's view of children's rights. See: here.

Bryan Adams

Hi Binksternet -- appreciate your comments regarding the "Dispute With AllMusic" section on Bryan Adams' wikipedia entry. I mistakenly created that section as an anonymous user w/IP, but have since found my original Wikipedia account and will be using that from now on. Please understand that the GetSatisfication.com/AllMusic forum page is the official AllMusic forum site, and is moderated by official AllMusic representatives, two of whom (Zac J. and Dawn G.) have both contributed to the discussion and given full explanation for why AllMusic had to remove Adams's content.

I have requested of Zac and Dawn that they create an official page on allmusic.com to address this subject -- even if it is a standalone, unlinked page, since the legal request from Adams likely precludes their even being able to create a page for him whatsoever. That said, pending this page creation, I'd request that you keep this section of Bryan Adams's Wikipedia page up, as it is definitively verifiable fact that a search for Bryan Adams in Allmusic's search engine turns up nothing for him (this was referenced with URL), along with the AllMusic representatives' official explanation of the matter (also referenced with URL).

I do agree that the more credible the source, the better -- and for that reason, I submitted that request to AllMusic to have a page addressing this on allmusic.com, as well as getsatisfaction.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supra92 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Kathy Boudin

The other editor has never edited anything except this article and openly dislikes the subject and uses false edit summaries and while claiming to remove "Contentious material" actually added memorial pages to the dead cops and removed referenced material. I am not edit warring I am stopping a biased vandal from destroying an article he doesn't like. 108.94.154.235 (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

How come only I got a warning? 108.94.154.235 (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I warned the other editor. If he continues with his removals you can ask for page protection at WP:RPP, and you can take the issue to WP:BLP, dealing with biographies of living persons. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ugg boots rearing it's head again

Phoenix and Winslow is using the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement case[16] in an attempt to get me banned by making extensive use of my editing at Ugg boots as evidence of bad behavior. Specifically "WLRoss eventually became aggressively involved in the content dispute against Phoenix and Winslow and other editors at Ugg boots and related articles in October 2011, and continued the content dispute for the next two years" and the recent "improper closure" Rfc at the Ugg boots trademark dispute article. I'm not asking you to comment as I think the diffs I posted speak for themselves but I thought this dispute may interest you. Wayne (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to step in where I don't know the history. Did you or did you not follow him to hound him?[17] I think P&W pushes an unnecessarily fractious interaction style which is unhealthy for Wikipedia. I think he should be reined in, but this must be done according to the rules. I think his continued targeting of you will turn people against him. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I didn't know that page existed. If anything the diffs he uses there shows my neutrality and his claims are full of errors...for example I didn't "join forces" with Xenophrenic on his Talk page, I gave him a word of support regarding his RFC/U over the Anthony Weiner article but took no part in the RFC/U itself. Phoenix and Winslow says In March 2011 he returned to Ugg boots...on the other side in a content dispute. In fact, the Ugg boot content dispute in question did not occur until October - December 2011, seven months after I returned to the article and he was a lone editor in a dispute against five or six other editors. The timeline of interaction is as follows. We first met at the Ugg boots article where he was a SPA for two years until he began editing the Franklin article, I was already a long time editor at the Franklin article when he went there where he was the sole editor arguing for deletion of mention that King was a prominent Republican and his objections to the article escalated when he failed to get that edit. I later created the Ugg boots trademark dispute article and User:North8000 did the first good article review which was interrupted by Phoenix and Winslow's objection. I found the Tea Party article mentioned on North8000's Talk page so went and had a look. I wasn't really aware that Phoenix and Winslow was editing the article until I went there and even then didn't think there was any problem as it was the first and only time I had turned up at an article after him. As TPM astroturfing was big news in my local newspaper at that time, I made a few comments on that subject when Phoenix and Winslow turned up claiming I was stalking him. I stopped editing on the Talk page and six weeks later an editor posted about the relevance of the TPM's call to repeal the 17th Amendment so I replied to him that the 14th and 16th Amendments were also mentioned and gave him the sources that said it was part of the TPM agenda. There was no dispute, I made no edit suggestions and Phoenix and Winslow never took part in that discussion. As you can see, I can also make the argument that Phoenix and Winslow stalked me from Ugg to Franklin and also to several Australian company pages but as the Aussie companies were manufacturers of Ugg boots those are related to the Ugg boot article so don't count. Wayne (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that puts the boot on the other foot. I can see where P&W should be looking for a boomerang if he keeps pushing the hounding button. Binksternet (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Bryan Adams

I'm curious as to what you are looking for in the Bryan Adams issue. It's demonstrably true that Bryan Adams has been systematically erased from Rovi: I encountered it when working on the various charting templates, during which I discovered that Adams is now reported as never having released any albums or singles on either AllMusic or Billboard (which licenses its own chart data back from Rovi). The source being used is an official account from an AllMusic employee. I can see a case that there's a bit of OR going on in the article, and maybe it should be toned down to something more like "Adams has been removed from the Rovi database, and all AllMusic will state is ..." or something of the kind, but complete eradication is sufficiently unusual as to warrant mention.

While forums and tweets aren't the greatest of sources, https://getsatisfaction.com/allmusic/topics/bryan_adams_and_his_albums_are_not_findable_in_the_search_engine is from the official AllMusic role account, and https://twitter.com/allmusic/statuses/259291182931275776 is from the offical AllMusic twitter account.—Kww(talk) 18:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the truth of the situation, that Adams is no longer to be found on Allmusic, and that Allmusic employees have given an all-too-brief explanation.

The problem is that a search query which returns no Adams albums and a discussion board explanation are not sufficient to satisfy the WP:RS requirements of a WP:BLP. What is needed is a reliable reporter writing about the case. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you consider the statements from AllMusic on Twitter and their support forum to be sufficiently reliable regarding AllMusic's actions?—Kww(talk) 23:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS applies here. Allmusic talking about Adams on the Allmusic online forum is self-published. What is needed is a secondary source. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to mention that I am sorry to trouble you with this -- I am unhappy that it came to this. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You are way off base with the "cabal" accusation. How disappointing. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, did you perhaps misread Jytdog's comment? Nowhere does he accuse you of cabal-like behavior, but is complaining that another user has accused both of you... Nevermind, @User:Jytdog, mentioning Binksternet's name in this context appears counterproductive. Despite any past disagreements you have had on the BP article, I see no evidence he has done anything wrong in relation to this issue (GMO).

Binkster, I apologized at the ANI and do so here again, and I corrected what I wrote. You were not central to the BP thing at all and your involvement was so peripheral that i should not have mentioned you at all. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Serial Commas

Hi Binksternet,

When you commented on my talk page, you said that Serial commas are not required and wikipedia recommends minimal modern approach to commas. I only did it to add clarity and consistency to the article since most articles use serial commas. Were you trying to tell me to not use serial commas?

thank you, Robert (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct. I was trying to tell you not to add serial commas to various articles which consistently do not use them. Binksternet (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Rashid Minhas

So you really think this (or this) is a reliable source? Its a forum post by Yawar Mazhar. --SMS <sup>Talk</sup> 20:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yawar Ahsan Mazhar is a published author on the topic of Pakistani Air Force jets, which is why I consider him a good source, no matter that the forum was an online forum. You can see an earlier discussion about this issue at Talk:Rashid_Minhas#Did_Minhas_.22Crash.22_the_plane.3F. In that thread there is an old URL which has gone bad. Here is the archived version which shows Mazhar's article written for the German magazine Flieger Revue. The article is titled "F-104 Starfighter im Kampfeinsatz bei der pakistanischen Luftwaffe" ("F-104 Starfighter in combat at the Pakistan Air Force"). This same article is used as a reference in the German Wikipedia article on the MIG-21: de:Mikojan-Gurewitsch MiG-21. Thus Mazhar is not just some unknown forum participant.

The other side of the coin is that nobody really knows how the official story was put together, so it is not so much of a stretch for Mazhar to challenge it. The official story has very little detail, and it includes conjecture and also nationalism for propaganda purposes. It is of dubious truthfulness. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart

Thanks once again for recreating the article on Ted Andrews. And... I was wondering if you could take a look at Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart. What bothers me is that the time frame, type of IMO draconian editing, and general deletionist history of the editor involved looks so much like that of Qworty, that I wonder if this is a sock. In any event, the wholesale deletion of entire sections, constituting most of the article, then tagging the rest, looks awfully familiar (and if this IS a sock many other articles may be affected). Rosencomet (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A quick look at the page's history did not make any Qworty socks jump out as obvious. The large deletion and tagging looks like good faith cleanup work to me.

At any rate, I will check into the biography and see if I can add something worth keeping. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerns regarding edits to Murray Rothbard

Hello Bink. Your latest reversion (1) on Rothbard is troublesome to say the least, particularly because I have explained what the passage says to you on numerous occasions.

Rothbard writes, in clear English, that he supports "the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die". He does specifically discuss the case of letting a deformed baby die, but this is merely a (less controversial) example which he puts to rhetorical use to lead into the broader (more controversial) principle quoted above. This is an objective matter of comprehension. You continue to objectively misunderstand the passage. This misunderstanding also constitutes OR, since (my/the correct) interpretation you keep reverting is sourced by the peer-reviewed Politics, Philosophy and Economics RS, while your misunderstanding is sourced by nothing.

You seem to believe that use of an example to illustrate a principle (the right for police to torture applies in the case of murder; or the right of parents to let their babies die applies in the case of deformity) means that the principle only applies to that example. That's just logically fallacious. Please try to understand this distinction before proceeding further on the Rothbard article. Steeletrap (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate

A stiff drink to clear the palate

the attempt to get the non PC blog discussion back on a rational course. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes the chaff gets in the way of the wheat. Or perhaps the barley and hops. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have had dark Leffe. A noble brew. This looks better :) A fine chaff clearer! Regards Irondome (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi, Binksternet, please if you could kindly spare some time and drop in your thoughts on the new steps, moderated by admin Nick-D, that are being taken to resolve the dispute regarding blitzkrieg on the Battle of Kursk article. EyeTruth (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting earlier. Unfortunately, thanks to the ploy of a certain editor, the whole thing has bugged down again into a long essay of discussion and drama. But this time around Nick-D has suggested that a poll on the suggested wordings would be the best way to avoid the whole drama and reach a conclusion. All you need to do this time around is to place your vote for whichever version you think is preferable. The LINK. EyeTruth (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This "certain editors' ploy" has succeeded. A final decision is now being acted upon, with a voting structure. A metaphorical kick up the rear works wonders sometimes. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The kick up the rear always work. But this "certain editor" may not be who I think you imply it to be. EyeTruth (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Its ok. I have figured it out. Bit slow today :/ Cheers! Irondome (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

B Roll Edit

The source does cover it and sites a prime example. Look it up, this is a widely used meaning. I'll give you 10 examples.

Skyfall https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E69eKPfS1ic The End https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZOMcrk2Cqc Star Trek 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQutDk1yecI Wolverine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfaueL_QQC0 Ganster Squad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8qfnyi2BeM Silver Lining Playbook https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxWXRHW9otI Pacific Rim https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRRSeOYjIjc World War Z https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylSh0dOsd8Q IRON Man 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl_P0ZhG7P8 G.I. Joe: Retaliation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvYOyY2vVno

I am not sure why you are fighting this. I can give you 100 more examples if that's what it takes to convince you that this is how the term is often used. If you feel it is incomplete or poorly written edit away. However by deleting it you are inhibiting the practical use of a website you have spent alot of time contributing to. Please stop vandalizing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeterson101 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source as it accepts user-generated text and content. The concept of "B-Roll" is only tangential to the promotional videos you are pointing to. What these promotional links feature is usually footage from a camera positioned as an observer of the filmmaking process, the kind used in "the making of" types of documentaries that appear as extra features on many DVDs. This is not "B-Roll" because it is not supplementary footage intended for cutting into a main shot. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 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 the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

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) 00:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a question

Hi there Binksternet,

I have a question that I thought you might be able to help me with, since you've been around here a while. Recently i've become a thorn in the side of some folks dealing with the GMO issue. Now, i have had a couple visits to random articles that I work on a bit, where one of the folks from the MAM battleground has decided to come make disruptive edits. I am not sure the word for this type of activity, but wanted to know how I would go about having it stopped. Is there a notice i can put on my talk page to have an Admin come help, or something like that? Thanks, petrarchan47tc 01:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about WP:HOUNDING, which is something to report immediately at WP:ANI with diffs of the person following your to two or three articles. If you would like to use an editor interaction tool, try putting the name of the other editor at the very end of this URL, following the final equals sign: http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/editorinteract.cgi?user1=Petrarchan47&user2= I see by your recent contributions that you are concerned about Thargor Orlando, so this is the editor interaction chart for you and him. It shows that Thargor Orlando visited the Riki Ott page one minute after you did, and that he edited the following articles after you did: March Against Monsanto and Hedges v. Obama. On the other hand, he was at the Dahr Jamail article one day before you.

I hope your ANI report stops the hounding. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Very much appreciate the info, Binksternet. Though noticeboards are the last place I want to be. Good God, this group is turning wiki into a fricking playground: screw the encyclopedia, we have games to play and revenge to dole out! petrarchan47tc 19:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Binkster, let's do some factchecking here, shall we? I visited the Riki Ott page six weeks after Petrarchan47, not one day, and certainly not one minute..[18] [19]. I've been involved at MAM for months, my first edit was in June.[20] My first edit to Hedges was in March[21], and what Petra is complaining about happened was five days old.[22] You now accuse me of "hounding" in an unfounded way because you don't know how to read the editor interaction tool, which is now creating a pattern of unfounded, unsubstantiated attacks on my character, my edits, and my motives from you. This is a formal request for you to stop doing so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I see your "formal request" but there is no basis for you stopping me from helping Petrarchan47 with a question of advice about editor interaction. The interaction tool shows that Petrarchan47 edited the Riki Ott biography before you ever did, and it also shows that you edited the article approximately one minute after one of Petra's edits. If Petrarchan47 wants to use this information to file a complaint against you then that option is still available. I will probably comment on the discussion, too—I don't see any particularly chilling effect your warning might have on me. You know, the tool works both ways, which I already told Petrarchan47. You might want to see how you are being followed, for the boomerang. My advice to the both of you is to stop snooping into each others' edits. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You have no evidence that I'm snooping into anyone's edits, that's the point. You have a habit of making wild, baseless accusations. This is not the first time you've done so to me. The correct response is to apologize. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The context here is that this is my talk page and I was advising Petrarchan47 on what to do if hounding is suspected. You are welcome to observe and comment but not to stop me from giving advice on my talk page. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

When your advice is based on misinformation about another editor, I would expect someone to be counseled on it. The more false accusations you make, the worse it will get. That's my advice for you on your talk page. It's awfully strange that your response here is to be more combative than to correct the problem, but I can't force you to act a certain way. Have a good day. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You asked for my apology. Requested apologies are rarely worth a damn—they should be spontaneous. I did not offer an apology because I do not appreciate being directed by you, and at any rate I did not feel sorry for looking into Petrarchan47's request and offering my advice. Is that what you perceive as combative behavior? Me failing to apologize when you asked for it? Your threshold for combat is lower than mine. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't think repeated unfounded claims about your fellow editors are combative, I'm at a loss as to what else to tell you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are at a loss. There are no repeated unfounded claims here, just advice to Petrarchan47 which included a boomerang warning. Let it go. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you did not recommend that I be reported for "hounding" based on your misreading of the toolserver app? No one's going crazy, so there's no need to chill. I just want to be sure you know what it is you're doing, or at least have it on record that you do not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My goodness, you are the tiresome type. I laid out options for Petrarchan47; I did not recommend anything. I will not be analyzing myself further for your benefit. If it is an inquisition you wish to participate in, select another venue than my talk page. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll take your shovel now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The attempts to chill discussion only make me speak out more. What appears to be happening is that Thargor has decided to remove mentions of Truthout as a source, and to go ahead and rewrite parts of articles that had used it, but without any knowledge of or study of the subject, which is very evident at the Riki Ott page. I'm not following him around, so don't know where else this is happening. He left the Ott page with improperly formatted refs, and warned me that I've reverted him three times (so I can't fix his mistakes). He demands that I convince him that the former content was valid before fixing his vandalism. I want no more interactions with him so have left the Ott page for others to deal with. But it isn't only Truthout as a source that bothers him, Thargor removed the fact that Dahr Jamail had written for the site for years. He has thus far not given me an explanation. petrarchan47tc 21:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Another Plant's Strider sock

I'm pretty certain that this account fails the duck test. GabeMc <sup>(talk|contribs)</sup> 21:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. I've been wondering about this one. Can you show diffs comparing the same style or the same text changes? Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

San Francisco Bay Area task force - Achronix

Hello, I want to appeal to you as San Francisco Bay Area task force member. There is an article I tried to write: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Achronix. Can you review it and check is the company notable enought? I think it can be not correct to move the article myself without third-party check. Or, if you can't review the article, where can I notify other members of task force to review it? Thanks `a5b (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the company meets WP:GNG (general notability requirements) because of non-trivial coverage in depth in at least two national publications. There should be some changes made to the article, especially stating right at the top why the company is notable. Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your help again, please

I was editing the biography of Tyrone Hayes today because I was sent an article from Chronicles of Higher Ed that said his lab funding was cut. In reviewing that article history and its talk page and other various links, I think I have found something very odd. This editor seems to be either a spoof account, a sock maybe (?), or a person editing their own biography on Wikipedia. Whoever they are, they also left a rather incoherent message on User talk:AcademicReviewer. I have never had anything like this come up before, would appreciate your review and assistance. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Tyrone Hayes has personally recognized falsehoods in his biography and has stepped in to correct them. I see the article has a lot of attack characteristics in it, with poor sourcing. I will try and fix this problem. These things usually settle down in favor of a very conservative presentation, that is, in favor of the living person who is the subject of the biography. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Another possibility is that someone sympathetic to Hayes created the account to correct the Hayes biography. I say this after reading some interviews of Hayes and comparing his style to that of the editor Thereisonlyonetyrone, and seeing a mismatch. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate your help on this. I also see the style mismatch, but I can't tell if its someone out to cause trouble or someone out to fix trouble. Either way, I think a more experienced hand through the material would be a blessing. Thereisonlyonetyrone, also deleted the photo link today, apparently that's not a good image - although it was on commons just sitting there. Perhaps there are copyright issues with it? Again, something beyond my ability to tell and I'm concerned also about my personal feelings in the situation. Having been bullied, I feel really sorry for anyone who gets attacked by others and lose my WP:NPOV in favor of the victim. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject California task force

Do you by chance know if there is a list of the specific task force sub projects like the Bay Area Task Force? Specifically looking to see if there is a task force for Sacramento. Any help you can provide would be great!--Mark 17:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The closest existing task force is Wikipedia:WikiProject California/California Delta task force, which appears to be inactive since 2010. There was a 2009 discussion which touched upon a task force for Sacramento alone but enthusiasm was lacking: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Archive 5#New Sacramento task force?. If you wanted to get such a task force going you should know that the survival of these things depends on the continuing energy of at least one person, otherwise they end up inactive. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Very true. I have seen these things die a slow and painful death, but a new editor has expressed interest in such a task force and I agree that one could be useful. Thank you very much for the information. I did notice the delta task force when trying to search but the discussion you linked I did not find. I will pass this along and see if there is enough interest to attempt this again. Thanks!--Mark 18:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

COI in Bose article?

Just curious. What tipped you off that the ip 66.31.108.68 works for Bose, rather than some fan? Still, the sources are legit. Would like more positive, reliable source items so we can ditch the NPOV tag. Mattnad (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to the tiny town of Newton Center, Massachusetss, where Bose has its headquarters on 6 Peach Tree Lane. I assumed a conflict of interest immediately, and I stand by my position even though it was a gut reaction.

Of course some positive reviews could go in the article. There are also negative reviews that could be added, for instance Lou Reed saying he would pay money not to listen to Bose. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd love that Lou Reed quote, but Amar might have a stroke and then sue wikipedia.Mattnad (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Amar went to his reward last month, so he's past the stroke stage. Binksternet (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

San Francisco Bay Area Combined Statistical Area map and colors

Could you please weigh in at Talk:San Francisco Bay Area Combined Statistical Area#Map Issue when you have time. Myself and another editor keep reverting each other. -Optigan13 (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

A New Photo for Vaughn Walker

Mr. Binksternet, you welcomed me to Wikipedia when I created an account a while back, which I thought was quite kind. I made a couple of edits, but I am not yet a confirmed user and have a photo I think would be preferable for Judge Walker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_Walker). I contacted the photographer and got a Wikipedia Declaration of consent for all enquiries. This new photo is not at PRI and contains no branding of any kind. I wonder if you might consider helping me put it up, as I am not confirmed, or a giving me a quick suggestion as to which of the several methods I should use if you don't want to get involved. I also left a request for Bbb23 a couple of days ago, but have not heard back. As I'm sure you know, the Judge's page history is a hotbed of snarkism, for some reason, and I don't want to make some sort of clumsy move that stir the nest. You advice/help is much appreciated. Ddb2001 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Send me the photo by email: Special:EmailUser/Binksternet. I can upload it right away and start the process which is called OTRS, the process whereby the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team accepts emails from people regarding the free status of images and text. You and me and photographer will have to send some notes to the OTRS people. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate it, and I will do it promptly. I hope you will be frank when you can point me to research if I am wasting time. I will also send email from photog. and check back for next steps. Ddb2001 (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I am always frank. Nobody has ever accused me of the opposite. ;^)

I will continue to advise you as needed. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I sent the image and the photographer's note off to the OTRS team. (This was after trying and failing to upload it prior to permission.) Let's see how quickly they respond, how badly they are backlogged. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly love the image because it is low resolution, because it looks Photoshopped with Walker's facial lighting differing substantially from the background lobby lighting, because there appears to be a confusion about what is the subject (the foreground or the background?), and because it is too wide for a good portrait. Classic portraits are taller than they are wide. Of course, the existing photo could be cropped, but that was clearly not the intent of the photographer. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will see if, long term, I can engage the photographer and talk him into resolution and crop change. Again, appreciate the help. Ddb2001 (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice, and one more note of appreciation. You are a truly a wikisamaritan. Ddb2001 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind thoughts! Best... Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"Meatpuppetry" investigation of Sionk has been opened at my request; You are named as his co-participant or "puppet"

You may want to comment in your defense.

A courtesy notice from Albiet (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet

Ref: User talk:Legolas2186

Hi Bink, You originally blocked Legolas2186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) however his page makes no mention of it and the bot seems to have archived the block messages etc. Is that an issue? → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I never blocked him. I have never been an administrator with the ability to block. In fact, I wanted him to stay active so that he could help fix the messes he created with fake references and made-up quotes.

You want User:Georgewilliamherbert, not me. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)