User talk:Binksternet/Archive27

MRM

Hi Binksternet, long time no see. I wrote something here and I hope that you'll reply. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I will comment when I get the chance. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

KAL 747 photo

I thought the WP:OP debate held that CGI photos of aircraft disasters not created by the Government could not be used and I recall a ton of CGI photos were removed for that reasons. Is there something I'm missing?

Besides, don't you think perhaps it would be a lot better to use a real photo of a KAL 747 rather than a CGI one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjnboy (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Please link to the debate you describe.

I prefer the artist's rendering because it shows the aircraft as it would have appeared just before the tragedy. It includes the "I [heart] NY" phrase which has been noted. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I recall first seeing this debate on the Pan Am Flight 103 talk page. But saw it on other pages which had CGI photos of airplanes. The reason why CGI photos are not allowed have to do with them being considered "Original Research". All I know is that the end result was the vast majority of plane crash pages having CGI images not made by the NTSB or Government removed. That is until I hunted for free or licensed photos to replace them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pan_Am_Flight_103/Archive_8#Fantasy_infobox_image_-_remove.21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjnboy (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The artist's representation is only a jet airliner flying quietly at night, straight and level. There is nothing remotely challenging about this image; it does not violate WP:NOR by having, say, rockets heading toward it from some direction, or showing it severely damaged and falling. It is not a "fantasy" image. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well what if I were to get permission to use a real photograph of the plane involved in the incident? I was able to get permission for use of a photo of the plane that became United Airlines Flight 173. I have no intention of butting heads and think that perhaps a photo of the real deal would be an amicable solution for everyone and would also give the article a greater degree of seriousness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjnboy (talk • contribs) 01:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In that case both images could be used in the article. I still like the night flight image at the top. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

How about we put the CGI image in either the "Flight deviation from assigned route" or "Shootdown" section and have the caption say "Artist's rendition of HL7442 as it would have looked just prior to the shootdown"?

Like the Japan Air Lines Flight 123 page, which has a real photo of the plane in the infobox and a CGI rendering of the earlier tailstrike incident down below. All the other plane crash pages that I've read have it like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123

But then again, this is all dependent on if the man gives me permission to use the real photo. I've already messaged hime and am awaiting his reply. If he does grant permission, how about we give my suggestion a try and if it doesn't look good, we'll do your suggestion? Bjnboy (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Such a decision should be taken to the article's talk page. Without having seen the real photograph, I still like the idea of having the artist's version at the top of the article. What you want is more people looking at this question. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Removals

Hi Bink, why did you remove several posts in this edit? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The posts appeared to be disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be best in the future if you ask an uninvolved admin to handle talk page removals. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Bink, your mass deletion of talk page comments is unacceptable and a flagrant violation of policy. Per WP:Talk, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." You made no argument for an exception (and no such exception existed).

Your brazen violations of policy are particularly inadvisable in view of the sanctions. Steeletrap (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Mark. It's good to know there are eyes on the case. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Binksternet, just a small note. I have been asking Specifico and Steeletrap to start treating you with more respect, and I hope you will temper your approach as well. Also, I don't think the "Binkie" thing that happened here a few minutes ago was necessarily trolling, but most likely a good nature spinoff from a playful thread on Steeletrap's talk page. That's all, ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the initiative; I hope it bears fruit. I still feel that the "playful" behavior was disrespectful trolling. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that I respond to Bink, Binkster or Binksternet and no other permutations of my username. Binksternet (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, Bink. However, if you're up for it, provide a diff where you made this clarification. I honestly have no recollection of it at all. Steeletrap (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Steeletrap! Here's one example from Bink's Talk Page Archives but I know I've seen her/him mention it elsewhere. I'm only recently active but I remember reading about their nickname preference. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"Impinge" vs "impugn"

Holy frickin' hell, THANK YOU. My interior English teacher (and I actually WAS one, so the interior one is REALLY intrusive sometimes) was going to explode my head if someone hadn't corrected the error. GJC 22:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hahaha! Air kiss >mwah< ... ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Electricladymural.jpg

Hello, Binksternet! I usually don't check my Commons page much, but I was alarmed to see this image deleted. I was there, in the legendary studio, and I figured that my image would be included under "freedom of panorama" like a tourist taking a picture of the Empire State Building. After some research, I realized that you were quite correct in deleting my image. Lance Jost's work is copyrighted, and my image did not properly attribute his copyright. Thanks for correcting me on that. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The first time one of my photos was deleted for this reason I was hopping mad. :-)

I am not a fan of the USA's law describing no freedom of panorama for murals—it's quite restrictive. The UK allows photographs of outdoor/public art if the art is not temporary, which I think is fair, but the USA does not. In either country, an indoor mural is not free to photograph. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is Deepak Chopra. Thank you. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 19:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again

Additional thanks for your continued diligence in tracing the sockpuppets of that most disruptive editor. Great work. Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. :-)

Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Larry Sanger

Could you have a look here? Thanks. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Livingtime

Thanks for the message 'Binksternet'. My name is Alderson Smith and I created the username 'Livingtime' several years ago when I was still an editor at Living Time Media Int'l. No one objected to my using that name, but the username represents me and not a business. I have requested to change my username to 'Aldersonsmith' to clarify the fact that I am an individual user and not representing a group or company in any way. Where I have linked to publications by LTMI this has been because they are the only currently available versions of books that had been unpublished for anywhere from fifty to one hundred years, books that I am indeed aware of because of my editing work. If this is an issue then I will ensure that no links are made to volumes on LTMI. I make links to books from other publishing companies and sources, whichever are the most readily available editions of the sources that people will be able to refer to. Thanks for your helpful message and I will watch out for future posts.Livingtime (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the fact that the books are otherwise unavailable except in various libraries. However, some of the books are effectively free of charge because they have been digitized, for instance All Things Are Possible (1905) by Shestov. If there is a free version of a source then Wikipedia would typically link to that rather than to a retail site. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy posting Binksternet. I will link to free sources whenever I am aware of them. In all the cases that I have linked to the Living Time Media Int'l it is because that site is not a current retail site but a still-existing site with much more additional information to offer on the topics I have written on. The site is not financially functional as you will find if you try to purchase anything from there. For my own part, though, I do want to do my own service of contributing knowledge to Wikipedia from various, sometimes obscure, areas that I see do need additional or more accurate coverage. I will do my best to ensure that I am as unbiased as possible in referring to different possible sources and I am trying to give more and more references with each edit that I make. It takes a while to get used to Wikipedia though I am going to persevere. All of your positive advice is greatly appreciated.Livingtime (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic! I wish you the best of luck as you move forward in your Wikipedia improvement effort. Ping me if you have any questions. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Binksternet! I'll ping you soon as I do have a no. of queries. I'll go through more of the general Wikipedia documentation before taking up more of your time...Livingtime (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Flow Newsletter - November 14

Hi. This is a brief note to let you know about an update to the Main FAQ (the addition of a large table of Components of the discussion system), and also to specifically request your feedback on two items: our sandbox release plan, and a draft of the new contributors survey. We look forward to reading your input on these or other topics - Flow can only get better with your ideas! –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

conation article

I see you got rid of something in the conation article to prevent COI/promotion of the Kolbe Corp stuff -- I thought you should see this link, from which a lot of the article appears to be copied, even if not in an overtly promotional manner: http://www.kolbe.com/downloads/research-and-validity/wisdom-of-the-ages/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.46.71 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. You are absolutely correct! I have removed the copyright violation material, greatly diminishing the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 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: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

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) 05:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverting edit!

Hello, why did you revert my edit on Harry S. Truman article ? was the image non free ?

The image was not a good one—the quality was poor and the subject was somewhat lost. There are enough images in the article. We don't need another one. Binksternet (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Grey School of Wizardry

Dear Binksternet, Hope you are doing well. I recently rewrote the article on the Grey School of Wizardry and I was hoping, if you get a chance, that you'd look it over and perhaps tighten it up bit. Also, if possible, I was wondering if you could look over the deleted article Philip H. Farber; I really think it's been deleted for personal-agenda reasons. However, I'll AGF and ask if you might have the time to improve it, and maybe it will survive next time. Thanks. Rosencomet (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice new article! I think Oberon's name should be in the lead section, not just down in the article body after everybody else's name.

Regarding Farber, I have a lot on my plate right now. If I get a chance I will look into his biography. I am not an administrator so I have no ability to read a deleted article. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Zack Norman again

Hi Binksternet! Have you had a chance to run through the Zack Norman article and bring it into the mainspace yet? Thanks so much, User:Matzohboy 20:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not yet... I have been working on other things. The biography is the queue, though. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Shorter books.google links

Mea culpa on not noticing next quote where Hoppe makes free speech point. (And for not remembering your point in the talk page discussion about that use vs. the other one. Reviewing it now.)

Anyway, it's the first time I saw a short books.google URL with a page number like that. I assume you find the page you want through a regular search and then -- do what?? I'll be happy to over time clean up a lot of those long links I've put in various articles. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc talk 15:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

When faced with a long Google books URL, I trim away everything after the first page number, which usually looks like pg=PA169 or something like that. In the Hoppe article the link went from this to that:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=qARC56X5vxcC&pg=PA206&dq=perversity+or+abnormality+Hoppe+Democracy:+The+God+That+Failed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IXKKUtfPIKagsASf24GIDg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=perversity%20or%20abnormality%20Hoppe%20Democracy%3A%20The%20God%20That%20Failed&f=false

• http://books.google.com/books?id=qARC56X5vxcC&pg=PA206

Of course I try out the newly trimmed URL to see if it still works. If the book has a foreword with little Roman numeral page numbers, or if the page is in an appendix, then trimming the Google URL might be a bit trickier. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it works. I love tidyness. User:Carolmooredc talk 02:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edit waring

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Gwillhickers 18:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

sourcing

Hi Binkster... just want to say that I have tried really hard in all my GMO editing to use really neutral sources - I reach for the things like the NYT as often as I can. I specifically try to avoid "monsanto-friendly" or anti-GMO activist sources, because I want content I write to be acceptable to anybody no matter where they stand on issues - I want to write the best, NPOV content I can, sourced with as high-quality sources as I can. I look for a long, long time for good sources. Just wanted to say that. Sorry for the intrusion. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've seen evidence to the contrary, especially with regard to the CVS source used over CNN and Al Jazeera, when referencing the turnout numbers for March Against Monsanto. This single source from a small media outlet you used to claim the turnout was as low as 200,000 when all others reporting on the march used "2 million". You later admitted the author of the piece did not know what s/he was talking about, and that the number was never meant to be an estimate, though you used it as one (and it remains to this day at multiple Monsanto-related pages).petrarchan47tc 20:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Dead horse. And I don't agree with anything you wrote above. Most importantly, dead horse.Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You are making untrue statements here. There is nothing dead about an edit history, which is exactly what you're referencing. All major media said the protest was attended by 2 million people, but you choose to quote an outlier, a number 1/5 the size of all other media, one that was never said to be an "estimate", sourced to an article you later wouldn't stand behind. It is also not a dead issue until the 3 or more articles with this low-ball number, based on gross misuse of sources, is remedied by using RS appropriately. Again, when it comes to making Monsanto look good, there is a pattern. Nothing dead about that, unfortunately. It is concerning, and well worth looking into, since you are the primary contributor to all Monsanto related articles, with 4X the contribs of any other editor at Monsanto.petrarchan47tc 20:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

RSN discussion layout

I know you don't like the involved/uninvolved layout we are seeing on the RSN. I've started a discussion re same here: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. – – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Duke of New York vs. just York

Hi, regarding the undo of my edit - I'm just going by the dialog in the movie, so unless it's different in the book (which I have but haven't read it in 30+ years), Alex's own words, "Down in the Duke of NEW York...". Just saw it less than a week ago. - No acct. 13:36, 21 November 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.177.82 (talk)

 Done. Just now I looked up a couple of books on the film and you are right. The bar/pub is named the Duke of New York. Thanks for your tenacity in bringing this problem to me personally. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Again

.... I think. See this. Almost a copy of this. Thought you liked to know. - DVdm (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Looks like Acalamari already blocked that one indefinitely. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Videos

Hi Binkster,

Did you happen to notice the RfC at the Edward Snowden page? We've got three short clips in the "Temporary Russian asylum" section that really need to be looped together and be displayed as a single video. I was thinking to ask at the Village Pump about this, but wonder if you might know what I'm asking here, and if it can be done. petrarchan47tc 20:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a video guy. Because of my familiarity with the things that are done by my colleagues who are video people, I'm absolutely sure there are multiple ways to open all three of them up in a video editing program and join them together, saving the result as one long video. I would even call it trivial, except that I have never done such a thing myself. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Binkster - it does sound like Village Pump might be the place, then (?). petrarchan47tc 21:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, try Village Pump, or the video games wikiproject. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty, danke. petrarchan47tc 22:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard

Hello Binksternet. While in many circumstances, it might not be contentious or aggressive to make a change without waiting for either close or explicit consensus on an RSN thread, I hope that you will agree with me that we should all err on the side of moderation and minding our p's and q's on these AS articles. Under the circumstances, I suggest we all keep our hands on the table so to speak and not do anything which might even have the appearance or suggestion of aggressive editing. Please consider. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw your revert of Carolmooredc's work as exactly that which you ask me to refrain from: aggressive editing. You were perfectly free to wait until some kind of formal closure at RSN and then rework the material if needed. However, you aggressively reverted her.

The RSN discussion is a discussion, not a legal procedure. Once discussion slows or halts, a sense of opinion can be determined. This simple procedure is obviously what informed Carolmoooredc's changes. It is also what informed my restoration of her work after your revert. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tim Weed

Gatoclass (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

First/Last warning disruptive editing of Nikkormat, and NO original research onHome roasting Coffee

Administrator Binksternet: You have made some disturbing edits and warnings on my talk page that perhaps require a bit more info from you. 1.) Home roasting coffee// You state no insertion of unpublished info or personal analysis when I explained how a toaster oven can be used to roast green beans. Please note that I assume therefore that I can slash out anything on the "Home roasting coffee" page that is not referenced from a published source? As I have been roasting coffee in various toaster ovens for over 30 years I find it quite offensive that you chose my unsourced "opinion" to rip out of the article, yet half the article is unreferenced unpublished personal analysis. 2.) Disruptive editing on Nikkormat page. I added in a very confused intro that is factually misleading that "The Nikkormat is, for all intents and purposes, a Nikon. Funny how on the back of all Nikkormats it clearly says "NIKON" and the instruction manual that came with my FT3 is published by "Nikon" Nippon Kogaku K.K. Nikon publication (FT3 instruction manual) (77.3.CO) Would the fact Nippon Kogaku K.K. was "Nikon" before it became Nikon Corp in 1988 be of any interest to anyone? Would the fact the Nikkormat camera body is stamped "NIKON" be of any interest to anyone? Would the publication # of the instruction manual for a camera only made one year in the '70's published by Nikon be of any interest to anyone? I ask these things because I will add them and use them as reference if you do not object? Yes or no? 3.)I will stop here, so you only have a few things to reply to. Please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raisinpie (talk • contribs) 06:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, kibitzer here. I happen to know a bit about Nikomats/Nikkormats. Now, the disputed text seems to have been: The Nikkormat is, for all intents and purposes, a Nikon. This does not seem to mean "The Nikkormat is a Nikon". What it does mean is unclear, which is already sufficient reason to delete the addition. (Off the top of my head: Nikons had exchangable finders; Nikkormats did not. This did not necessarily make Nikkormats inferior.) What you write above may well be intended to elucidate, but it (e.g. the claim that something is "published by 'Nikon' Nippon Kogaku K.K.") actually confuses further, and rhetorical questions about whether this or that observation would "be of any interest to anyone" also don't help. ¶ Please note that all experienced editors of Wikipedia realize very well that Wikipedia articles are already riddled with dubious material. However, the plethora of dubious material does not justify further additions to it. Dubious material should be improved or cut; what's added should be good. -- Hoary (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Raisinpie, you admit that your addition is your own analysis, thus it is clearly original research and was properly removed. If you start removing material just to prove a point you might end up blocked. On the other hand, the article needs more citations (we have a template to ask for them, {{cn}} and adding those judicially is fine (but judicially as I say, that means only for contentious material usually). Hoary is absolutely right. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller and Hoary. Don't put words in my mouth, please. Nippon Kogaku KK may have changed its name to Nikon Corp in 1988 as the Nikkormat article states, but it neglects to say Nippon Kogaku KK was "Nikon" prior. And no not all Nikons have interchanable lensfinders. I used Nikon almost exclusively in my surgical practice for 30 years and cannot recall any interchangable lensfinders. New users to Wikipedia should not have to be put up against tacticians like Binksternet threatening to block me for a few dubious edits out of many. What is with the nasty here on WP?Raisinpie (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller- I do appreciate the shortcuts, I think you call them-editing shortcuts like

you gave, etc. I would be tempted to use some of these on an article I find without any references, or biased opinions, etc. I am always hesitant and so far have never deleted something someone else has added. I'm sure I would be thrown to the wolves if I did that. I wonder why Binksternet did not use something like that {{cite)) rather than just delete and go from zero to final warning in 4 minutes--literally. Seems to be quite a double standard between administrators and editors--and I mean that in a constructive way as everything I write here. Along those lines, should not things be allowed to be added (temporalily) when someone runs across something they know to be a fact but do not have a reference at hand? Or someone else can add a reference--rather than just delete everything and say it was poorly written or the like? Raisinpie (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Raisinpie, I gave you four warnings right in a row because the first edit of yours that I ran across was so problematic that I went to your list of contributions to see what other things you have been doing. That list told me you were repeatedly violating WP:No original research which is not a suggestion but an inarguable policy. I did not care how many others might have violated that policy in the past when I visited your various contributions and saw that you needed to be warned to stop violating it yourself. Before I came along some of your edits had been reverted by Diannaa, Nigel Ish and by Denniss—all respected and experienced editors. I'm not an administrator but Diannaa is..

Please read the WP:NOR policy and understand that Wikipedia is not the place for your opinion, expert or not, if it has not been published. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet--Yes, Diannaa and Nigel Ish did make some useful comments, for which I thanked them and then went on to create better edits they had no problem with. Your four wrnings all came within four minutes. And you made no useful suggestions, you just deleted and made some snide comments, with the "threat" of a blockade immediately if you didn't like anything else I did. Tell me, if you are not an administrator, how can you block me? Do you often misrepresent yourself? I knew you would not give answer 2 my 2 simple question points, btw. Had you made a constructive comment I still would have returned to the Bf 109 article and produced a better edit--as I did, for instance. No need for unconstructive jabs. My interpretation of the "Fighter Aces" author was correct, by the way, but with messy wording and syntax. In my profession it is customary to get messy in paraphrasing others' work, along with cite/refs, etc. so as not to be involved in solicitor disputes. If you don't understand what I am getting at I will leave it at saying some people do not like their work quoted for more than a few words, and messy is one way around it that. By the way, the Nikkormat article needs a major overhaul. Nikkormat is not a brand. It is a Nikon camera, just as is Nikkorex and Nikonos. All Nikon "models." Nippon Kogaku KK (Nikon Corporation) was established in 1917, and the first production camera was offered in 1948. And Binksternet, I went to the bottom of your userpage by mistake last night looking for a reply down here on the talk page, and noticed you roast your own beans. I have been roasting beans for over thirty years. My first "roaster" was a toaster oven my grandmother gave me when she realized it was useless for most things. The section where I added to the home roasting coffee page was full of uncited references so I felt free to add mine. So I felt especially offended when you slashed it out among all the other uncited sales pitches for expensive equipment in that section. I roast high quality beans to the exact degree of darkness I desire in a $40 toaster oven. The results are exceptional, but of course there is more to it than a preheated 400 degree toaster oven with beans in a single layer and stirring w/ a wood spoon and 10 minutes time. My unmentioned cooling methods are quite rapid while being extremely simple. Shame on you for denying the world the fact excellent coffee can be roasted in a toaster oven. Do I still have just one more mistake before you turn me into a pumpkin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raisinpie (talk • contribs) 06:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Your comments about how you roast coffee show that you have not yet taken the WP:No original research policy to heart. This must be done if you would like to continue editing Wikipedia. Your personal experiences are not suitable for the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thx for suggestions on improvements on Impalement!

I've sort of hoped that an experienced editor like you would strongly suggest that the next level of improvement would be a major size reduction of the article. For myself, it is easiest to make the article comprehensive and fully referenced at first, and THEN, when it has "matured" a bit, and I've gained a critical distance to the article, to hack away material. On the invisible pre-article stage, there were lots of references/cases that I chose NOT to include, now it is the time to retain only the "truly essential" stuff, while keeping the article sufficiently broad in coverage and referenced. I am by no means finished by the massacre of inessentials (I've just started, really), and I hope that from time to time, you might take a peek and see how it is gradually improved. Many thanks, Arildnordby (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you help me with a revision tag on Impalement?

Hi there! I know that it exists some tag that says "This article is under major revision. Please do not add material during the process", or something like that. But, I don't know the code to get that revision tag, so if you know it, I'd be immensely grateful if you add it on top of the article.Arildnordby (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The two relevant templates are Template:In use and Template:Under construction. The first one is for active editing. The second one is for when you take a longer break away from the keyboard but are still in the process. You can alternate the two as you progress. The template of your choice goes at the very top of the page. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!Arildnordby (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Hi, if you haven't already, please take note of the details of Template:Austrian economics enforcement. This is a general reminder, and not given in response to misconduct. I've decided to err on the side of caution to try to make sure that people involved in this topic area are aware of the discretionary sanctions. Consider this a "no-fault" notification. If you're already aware (which you probably are), feel free to remove this message. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, ANI mention

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Just quoted you, but FYI. Thank you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

AldersonSmith

Thanks for the belated welcome message discovered by me today. I have been off WKPDA for the last week but will return in the next day or so. I am going to try editing a couple of new articles on modern-day authors for whom I have been locating sources and references over the past few weeks. I am also going to then try and create the correct links from other articles as well as possible so that the articles are not tutted upon as needing verification and being orphans. Thanks for the bunch of Info you sent me the links for - I'm just going to start opening them now. Oh, and thanks for the Cookies - I caught them while they were still warm! A.S.Aldersonsmith (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Haha! Good luck with your work to broaden public knowledge on Wikipedia. If you want some help on an issue, ping me here. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just got down to editing some new articles. A couple about modern authors and a couple about schools of thought. With regards to one of the former, what can I do to correct the error/s that have occurred in writing a page about the Franco-English author Edouard d'Araille. There seems to be some problem with links to disambiguation pages and links coming back to the page, though I don't understand what has happened. I've done my best to provide references (almost fifty, and I've tried to balance between internet and physical references). What is the obvious work that I need to do so as to get the article past the line and reach a satisfactory standard fir Wikipedia? I know I've got to go back and provide more references for my Paul-Louis Landsberg article (as there are only ten), but in the present case I'm less sure of what I need to do as I have referenced it throughout but need to fix what appear to be some more basic problems. Out of all your own articles, which ones would you recommend as models of what Wikipedia editing should be? That might help me out most of all. Yours, A.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.211.12 (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Whew! The Edouard d'Araille biography has some major wiki markup problems, that much is certain. It could use some categories, too. Some of your offline sources appear to have no ability for a reader to verify them, for instance Une Dialogue avec Edouard d'Araille vis-a-vis 'Robbe-Grillet' (1996, Paris), "'Fortune Street' Interview with Edouard d'Araille (London, August 2011)", and "Interview with the Author of 'Black Cab' - Edouard d'Araille (LTV, 2001)."

The Paul-Louis Landsberg is in better shape, with the markup behaving correctly and some categories in evidence at the bottom. It needs more references, according to User:Asukite. I'm heading off to bed right now. I will look more closely at these biographies tomorrow. I will hunt for online references for the Landsberg bio.

If you would like some of my articles as a model you might select among the following: Richard Henry Savage, Chrystal Macmillan, John Kenneth Hilliard, Agnes Mary Mansour, Daniel O'Connell (journalist), Ralph Stackpole and Henry Edwards (entomologist). All of these have passed the WP:Good articles standard, and the last one passed the tougher WP:Featured articles standard. I hope that helps! Binksternet (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, it does appear to have enough references as a whole, and I'm not fully certain what caused me to feel otherwise. A couple of sections (which I'll probably read over and mark later if I find the time) could perhaps have a few more inline citations, but I don't feel that the tag was appropriate after all. Correct me if I'm wrong, and happy editing! {_C  A S U K I T E  ^T} 14:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Asukite. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I poked at the Landsberg biography, making a few tweaks here and there. Landsberg's notability seems pretty well established with an entry about him in a philosophy encyclopedia, and a few pages dedicated to his ideas in the more recent Schumacher book. There is more improvement to be done at the Landsberg biography but I'm going to leave that to others. Next up: Edouard d'Araille. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Big problem with notability

The Edouard d'Araille biography has one really big problem and that is WP:BASIC notability. D'Araille must satisfy this minimum guideline at least, with significant coverage about him written in several respected publications, independent of each other and of the subject. It is not enough that d'Araille has accomplished much; he must have been the subject of dedicated observation by other writers. Further possibilities are listed at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and WP:AUTHOR, but these do not give d'Araille any better shot, as far as I can tell. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Beast cut in half, still alive and kicking!

Well, I guess first stage of comprimation of Impalement is done now. I'd be really grateful if you find the time at some point to give your impressions on its Talk Page, particularly with the view of further cutting (but, if some sections now seems too lean, I'll be happy for input on that as well). After further comprimation, I think I'll do a bit a balancing of the article, relative to previous material (and material now kept in refs). Anyway, thanks again that an experienced editor like you took a bit of interest in the article, giving me some constructive feedback (sometimes, destruction is the best constructive advice!)Arildnordby (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will revisit the article tomorrow and share my thoughts. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra description

Hi,

I now added references of articles by authors supporting the adequate description of Deepak Chopra. There is also a related article,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2013/11/24/deepak-chopra-gets-upset-tries-the-harvard-gambit/

but one should be enough. Moreover, I should point out that Chopra's "expertise", namely, holistic health New Age alternative medicine is considered to be pseudoscience, even by Wikipedia standards, as you can easily check. :)

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.121.57.151 (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

How is a an article by a scholar author of books and articles with 3000+ citations not a reliable source?

Can you please let me know what is a reliable source is?

For a controversial label such as pseudoscientist you will need several respected books, and then the statement would need to be without strong rebuttal. I doubt you will get such sources any time soon. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please, give me the reference in the Wikipedia Guidelines that states "For a controversial label such as pseudoscientist you will need several respected books".

Moreover, I don't think there is anything controversial about Chopra being a pseudoscientist... it is quite universally accepted by doctors, physicists and other authors. His practice is even mentioned in Wikipedia pseudoscience page as an example of such.

You also failed to specify how is the article by a scholar not a reliable source. I don't think there is anywhere in Wikipedia Guidelines saying that it is necessary to have hundredths of published works on a single statement to make it verifiable.

My edition stands as reasonable and agreed by several cited authors, including physicists, biologists and journalists.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.121.57.151 (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 

November 2013 GA Thanks

This user has contributed to Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design good articles on Wikipedia.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design, which recently was promoted to WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome! Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Grey School of Wizardry Again

I've been having a bit of trouble with this article. First, a similar article was posted under The Grey School of Wizardry, then both were nominated for deletion by someone with no history of editing contributions and no real reason listed for the nomination except on the talk page. Then someone suggested merging the two (which makes perfect sense; mine has more material and less peacock language, advert language and repetition, but I don't care how it's done as long as the final article survives). It could probably use a few more 3rd party citations. Any chance you'd have time to help it out? Rosencomet (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Dang! Why would UltraExactZZ give voice to a drive-by SPA who clearly has something against the School? I'll do what I can over the next few days to help sort the resulting mess. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If there's no rationale by the next time I check, I'll sort it myself. I'm starting to think that I stretched AGF a bit too far, my usual skepticism being on holiday. See also my comments at the AFD. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn, per the above. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Now to settle the merge. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice work on this and the addition of the infobox. Rosencomet (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive

Hello! A GAN Backlog Drive will begin in less than 4 days! In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate per review. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00. At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or leave a message on the Backlog Drive talk page. And remember, there are less than 4 days before the drive starts!--EdwardsBot (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

KAL 007 Green Street Reds television ad

Why is the reference to the AP story appearing in the Argus-Times newspaper considered "poorly referenced"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak (talk • contribs) 20:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

What AP reference are you talking about? The material you have been adding has nothing about an AP story. It is just a blog (not reliable) and a youtube compilation of ads. There is nothing here to connect the tasteless ad's angry reaction to the KAL 007. Nobody in the blog makes the connection, and the string of youtube ads doesn't make the connection. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It was my recent change where I had added the newspaper/AP reference. If you overlooked that in oversight, would you mind restoring the deleted material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

After seeing that newspaper piece I would completely rewrite the entry you brought to the article. I would not include the blog, only the newspaper piece. The angry reaction to the advertisement was evidently because of Santa Claus killed, not because of KAL 007. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I had already deleted the blog reference, and had already made one correction in the Wikipedia article based on the newspaper article -- correcting the date from December, 1983 to November, 1983. I will go ahead and make the clarification you suggested, and restore the deleted material. I must also clarify that I did not "bring the entry to the article," I was merely restoring information contributed by an anonymous (IP) contributor that I saw was true and verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I was the original author and the ad WAS REFERENCING the KAL-007 shoot down. I saw the original ad air on KGO back in 1983 and the controversy that happened immediately afterward. Thank you for the newspaper piece, Michaelmalak. BTW, Wikipedia is technically a blog so I wouldn't be throwing stones in glass houses if I were you, Binksternet. [Anonymous]

Dominus Vobisdu

Hey Binksternet, you remember your old buddy Dominus Vobisdu? Do you, by any chance, know what happened to him? He seems to have dropped off the face of the earth. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. Sorry. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Dancing...

You might enjoy this. My sister's granddaughters, only dancing for 6 months... [1]Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Cute! :)

Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/René Moncada

Binksternet, I hope you're planning on returning to this review. As I've noted, when most sources are offline, then the ones that are available online are checked for close paraphrasing and the like, and the rest are AGF, just as we use the AGF tick when the hook is sourced to an offline source. In this case, there are a few online sources, so the usual spot check can be made. If you aren't planning on returning, please let us know on the page, so we can look for a new reviewer. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I want to review the DYK nomination. Perhaps I can slot it in today while I work. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive

Hello! Just a friendly reminder that the GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on December 31, 2013! If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive! If you have any questions or want to comment about something regarding the drive, post them here--EdwardsBot (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

AldersonSmith again

Hi Binksternet. I just wanted your advice on an article I have created. I decided to do an article on a modern author with two decades of works in print but have immediately come up against the threat of the deletion of the article. I have provided six times more references than with my Paul-Louis Landsberg article and a Bibliography with around fifty entries. I have researched the topic properly and there are references to two biographical articles and interviews on the author (independent, not 'trade' literature). Since then references have been added to a new biography on the author and additional biographical references. The entry is Edouard d'Araille and is the first of a handful of articles on notable modern-day authors that I am writing. Just how much do I need to do in order to see that the article is accepted and not rejected? I would greatly appreciate your advice on this as an experienced editor as I do not wish to spend considerable time trying to improve my Wikipedia skills and then find that the more thorough work I do is deleted, while my first contribution was not. Aldersonsmith (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The biography is being proposed for deletion because it does not appear to meet the minimal requirements described at WP:BASIC. Multiple independent, secondary sources must have published information about d'Araille. The various interviews do not appear to be verifiable, or at least they do not appear to be independent of d'Araille. The Living Time biography does not appear to be independent of d'Araille. What is needed is some text dedicated to the career of d'Araille appearing in, say, Poetry Review, the London Review of Books, Areté or Planet. A prominent newspaper can serve as the independent publisher, too. The sheer quantity of your references does not help the article resist deletion. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of The Empire Hotel

Hi Binksternet. Why did you remove my edits about The Empire Hotel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebubblee (talk • contribs) 16:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to put your Empire Hotel information into a new article, one with a unique name such as Empire Hotel, New York, Empire Hotel, Manhattan, or something like that. There are other Empire Hotels which are significant, so none of them get the simple Empire Hotel name. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Stevie Wonder

Thanks for liking my edit. I thought it was odd that info on the debut (record) of such a well-known artist was so badly phrased and unsourced to boot with. A local Detroit single released in 1961, and there's not a source for it? --Paracel63 (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Thanks for making the article that much better. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

ALEC

This is quite unfortunate and it's getting out of control. I believe it's time for escalations to RSN and COIN, but I don't have time today. Maybe tomorrow. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong equipment on Helo's in Iran hostage rescue attempt

Binksternet- I would appreciate you reading the Holloway version of Joint Chiefs before you revert my edit. Clearly what I said is an implication of the Holloway report. You seem to be very set in your ways about allowing unsourced articles (home roasting coffee, etc) on WP, but when a source comes along you claim it is misrepresented because it does not go along with what you and the unsourced article says. Clearly, had the mission used readily available TFR (terrain following radar) at least one of the helicoptors that turned back would have made it to meeting point; and the mission could have gone on. The use of mine laying helo's with their simple NVG night vision goggles was totally inappropriate for a mission in an area known for sand and dust storms. This is what Holloways report indicated. If you disagree with some minor point of the edit, then delete that, rather than the whole thing.Raisinpie (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You are analyzing the Holloway report in a way that is not plainly stated in the report. This is a violation of WP:NOR and cannot stand. Either that or you are misrepresenting the source, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. I disagree in a major way, not minor. Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

>IC, is that why you tried to undo your delete of my original edit while I was writing my relevant summary of the 50 page report?Raisinpie (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Comfort women

I corrected distorted history in wiki so please undo the undo. http://www.exordio.com/1939-1945/codex/Documentos/report-49-USA-orig.html If you don't believe above site, please request copy from Library of Congress or other organizations.

Various wiki and you can check the sources there too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreation_and_Amusement_Association http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_South_Korea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_South_Korea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitutes_in_South_Korea_for_the_U.S._military

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF WAR INFORMATION Psychological Warfare Team Attached to U.S. Army Forces India-Burma Theater APO 689

Japanese Prisoner of War Interrogation Report No. 49.

Place interrogated: Ledo Stockade Date Interrogated: Aug. 20 - Sept. 10, 1944 Date of Report: October 1, 1944 By: T/3 Alex Yorichi

Prisoners: 20 Korean Comfort Girls Date of Capture: August 10, 1944 Date of Arrival: August 15, 1944 at Stockade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.102.8 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

One document does not counter many books. You are misrepresenting the larger topic. Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Compliments of the day

I just saw your new user page. Very nice to see the person behind the legend! Stay well. - MrX 22:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Best wishes to you, too. Right now there's a bit of a busy season in my business, with back-to-back Christmas parties. Last night was a Great Gatsby-themed one at San Francisco City Hall inside the rotunda with its far-too-reverberant marble surfaces. Tonight is some swanky thing at a classic San Francisco hotel. Tomorrow night is a ginormous party for a well-known online networking company, in a huge pier building decorated with various themes taken from the game Clue. The one good thing about getting home in the wee hours is that there is very little traffic. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:B-52s chopped.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion involving you

I wanted to alert you to an on-going discussion at Admin's Noticeboard/Incidents. You are one of five editors to issue a behavior warning to MilesMoney. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Bink, I noticed that you have been one of the regular editors participating in articles related to Austrian Economics, and I was hoping I could convince you to participate in a small experiment on dispute resolution. It's formatted as a simple question and answer, with a hint of RfC/U, aimed at getting participants to talk with one another, recognize potential problems, and with any luck, commit to fixing those problems. The page is at User:Adjwilley/Austrian_economics and you are free to edit at your leisure. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will be looking at your page. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this was very helpful. Cheers ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

E tu, Binksternet?

Given the enjoyable time we've had over the years re Herb Caen, I'm going to ask you to do two things re Phineas Gage:

• Separate the issue of the baroque formatting (which I agree is perhaps a bit over the top) from this COI allegation; and
• Reserve judgment re COI until you know more about the sources, and about the tiny world of Gage research in general.

Do you recall the tussle over whether Caen was "a San Francisco journalist" versus "an American journalist with strong ties to San Francisco" -- people with no concept of the subject insisting that anything but some cookie-cutter formulaic opening sentence is a MOS violation? That nasty certainty is very much like what's going on here.

Gage is strictly a hobby for me, and contrary to what ChrisG says what happens on WP has no effect on my "academic prominence" (there's no such thing -- I'm not an academic) "which quite clearly impacts EEng's personal life and standing" (it doesn't -- my real-life work is computer engineering). I can see why people would suspect a POV problem -- I would too, coming from the outside and knowing nothing about the situation. So either there's a serious POV problem or, in truth, the article's presentation really is appropriate, or something in between. I'd like to know if you'll take the time to go over that question with me, away from the pile-on at COIN. It doesn't take long to see what's going on, but the problem is you can't get the right picture without actually looking at the sources, and no one ever does that.

So what do you say -- can you do this for me? For Herb? EEng (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

For Herb!

I have a lot on my plate, yet I realize that the COIN thread is hot right now. Certainly I am not going to consider that your real job is computer engineering and that Gage is an avocation; there is still status to be gained from making one's own book, and that of a colleague, more prominent. Ideally for you, others would find that your book is the bee's knees and cite it a lot. I don't think it is appropriate for you to push back as hard as you have at that article, since you have a horse in the race. I don't have the freedom right now to read all the sources (I'm doing my real job now, which tonight happens to be babysitting sound systems for 3300 people who are partying at San Francisco's Exploratorium), so I don't know what else to say except that I am willing to discuss further, especially when I am at leisure. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, is this anything like the old Pink Floyd thing they used to do at the planetarium? Do you have a designated driver? Let me know when you're recovered from that. What I'd ask in the meantime, if you will, is that you modify your "COI has been clearly shown" comment in some way. I hope you'll agree it's unfair to say that until someone's allowed me to explain why the sources are presented and used the way they are. EEng (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Other people are doing the drinking tonight at this very large winter holiday party for a well-known professional networking company.

The thing about WP:COI is that I don't have to read all the sources to find out whether yours is the one best suited for the task. The point of COI is that, if one of the references is yours, then you cannot push back repeatedly against other editors by reverting to your preferred version. You have to gain consensus on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: copyright on Schaffer-Vega

Hi,

Seems you've been here a while; I hope you can help with a question. Re: copyrighted material, is it acceptable to cite the sources but not include block quotes? That way, if one wishes she may look up the sources even though they don't appear. That seems to me to avoid a copyright issue.

Thanks, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jptvgrey (talk • contribs) 07:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. What you do is summarize the main points of the text, or just the points relevant to the article you are working on, then at the end of each paragraph or sentence you put a reference to your source. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for some instructions.

The good news is that you have selected an excellent source: Don Davis's Sound System Engineering. Everything in there has been verified over and over. It's solid.

Please return here to my talk if you have any more questions. Binksternet (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the assist. The Don Davis is great. Both clear and technical. I'll work on that a little later... Cheers! -John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jptvgrey (talk • contribs) 07:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Per your suggestion I *summarized the sources I quoted last time. *No copyrighted language included. Also tweaked some other language a little for clarity. I may redact the other sections when I have a little more time to research. Thanks again, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jptvgrey (talk • contribs) 21:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Jptvgrey, I jumped into the article and removed a bunch of text from the footnotes. I also sliced away at off-topic bits such as Schaffer's later achievements, and I cut away unreferenced bits. I am not quite as excited now as I was before with your choice of Don Davis's book; the book does not mention the Schaffer-Vega wireless system at all. It only talks about general poor quality wireless systems from the early days, without saying that the Schaffer-Vega was the turning point. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Liberace

I've restored the Nina Simone ref to the article but I've put it in the 'Miscellaneous section, perhaps it's more suited there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamrockawakening (talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not more suited there... the bit is trivial and unimportant. The biography of Liberace does not exist to mention every single time he is named in song lyrics or TV shows. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A disputant looking for someone with whom to dispute

Per your previous activity on the page, you might be interested in this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like somebody wants a wrestling match. Too bad the material under discussion includes so many poor quality sources on a BLP, which puts the 'disputant' at a severe disadvantage. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

War on Women

Please stop edit waring on the NPOV tag - it's becoming disruptive. The tag is not intended as a badge of shame, see the tag page - the IP is following the policy. "This label is meant to indicate that a discussion is still going on, and that the article's content is disputed, and volatile." and that "This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." There is an ongoing discussion and as stated by the tag "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I've also commented on NPOV issues, so inclusion does have support on the talk page. I can certainly work through the discussion with our without the tag, but the IP wants inclusion. I suggest just leaving it until the dispute is resolved or blows over - an additional week or two of the tag is not going to make a bit of difference but edit waring over it will create feelings of bad faith and aggressiveness as we work through the challenges on this contentious article. Morphh ^(talk) 22:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems a bit specious Morphh. One revert is not edit warring. Perhaps you meant to drop this note on 24.239.249.127's page? You're right that the tag is not intended as a badge of shame, but that is certainly how it is being used. It seems to be the argument of last resort from editors who have do not seem to understand the difference between presenting information neutrally versus presenting neutral information.- MrX 22:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I did leave a comment on the IP's talk page. As you know, edit waring is not tied to one edit or three by a particular user (though 3rr certainly is). Those engaged in the back and forth with the tag are participating in the edit war over the content. Also keep in mind that the article is under discretionary sanctions - so technically, you could be banned for just 1r if it's considered disruptive. Morphh ^(talk) 22:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The IP from Orrville, Ohio, is the disruptive element here; let's not fool ourselves. The person put a POV tag on the article in August 2013, and then posted a complaint about content on the talk page.[2] This sequence of actions is okay, but in the complaint s/he said that abortion should not be cast as a woman's reproductive right. What was in the article at the time was this:

War on Women is an expression in United States politics, primarily used to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights.

The Orrville IP has thus tipped the hand; we are looking at someone with an extremely conservative POV here, a person who cannot imagine that reproductive rights might include abortion, even though the definition of reproductive rights from the World Health Organization is purposely inclusive of abortion. Frankly, if someone is arguing a very limited definition of reproductive rights, then they have already taken up arms in the War on Women.

The IP editor argued on the talk page in August and September, then stayed away during October and November, all while the POV tag hovered over the article. The only thing that happened on the talk page in October was an automatic archival of old threads. In November some discussion started up again, but without Orrville IP. Ed Poor brought up a question of article scope, but it was not about whether the article was neutral. IP 24 joined this discussion of scope in December, and the scope of the article has continued to be under discussion since then. The POV tag is about content, not scope. My opinion is that IP 24.x thinks that s/he can hold the article hostage, retaining a badge of shame until the content does not attack the conservative position so much. Because of the nature of the topic, this person can never be satisfied. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

We've both been on Wikipedia a long time. A two month tag is a blink of an eye for articles and extending it another week or two to let things cool off is fairly meaningless and a good faith gesture. I don't dispute your telling of events or disagree with the conclusion - just think we might be unnecessarily biting the newbie and creating contention. I also have my own concerns about the NPOV of the article, so while I do think his scope issues don't fit, I do think the tag is appropriate for the article. Personally, I don't care about the tag so long as the issues get resolved, but often without the tag, the issues just get archived and forgotten. Anyway, I'm flexible on it - my intent was to reduce the contention, but I may have just created more. sigh Morphh ^(talk) 00:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming you know...

You've been mentioned here on Skeptools? KillerChihuahua 20:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware, so thanks for the note. I remember that sequence clearly: I was lucky enough to see the redacted OTRS letter in Google's cache before it was taken down, so I knew I had some ammunition to use if I did not actually violate the outing policy. There were several people revealed online with the redacted name, but only one who had been working with Chopra. From there I posted the counter claim which led to the boomerang for the OP. It's a kick to see my username in someone's blog.

I wonder if Chopra has been asking his event planners to hire any sound engineer but that Binksternet guy.

Cheers for big ears. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Rigged

I was still working on the Rigged article you have kindly transferred it but there are a lot of sections missing and I need the codes back, I am still improving on the article and spent hours on it, you could have at least transferred the entire article and made comments there instead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unhedge (talk • contribs)

See Rigged (book) for your work, with copyright violation removed. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, still working on it you should check the timing and as courtesy you shouldn't have delete it whilst another author is still working on it and re working the texts, that was a place holder you should have checked the history and you would realise another author is working on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unhedge (talk • contribs)

Copyrighted text cannot be used on Wikipedia at all, not even as a placeholder. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Sawtooth wave article deletion

hi i'm unsure how to get wiki to ask you. i'll try talk section.

I'm interested why "solutions to sawtooth wave intersections", which was only a paragraph in the sawtooth wave article noting places to look for solutions, was deleted.

was there some problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.160 (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I deleted that bit of text and the link because of Wikipedia's hard policy called WP:No original research which means things that appear in Wikipedia must have been published in reliable sources. You cannot publish your original thoughts on Wikipedia. Instead, you must find publications which support the text you want to bring to the article. Best wishes... Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Another deletion same day same time nearly

are you a vandal delteing robot ? like some run on wiki to harass people?

in a completely different topic, chinese remainder theorem, you deleted my few paragraph about obtaining CR by pairs (which uses wave alignment).

while you may have claimed the work was unsubstanciated, the code and tests were presented in the links and are undeniable.

and you knew that

you didn't offer any reason my submission was so below par as to be deleted without discussion or hidden from view.

nor do you say how equations people are putting in wiki become "registered math" whereas equations other people use are "illegal math". rediculous, that math is not public domain or only legal when you say it is from "a publisher". and that follows from the fact the many or most wiki equations are not exact replicas from the mentioned books. and most books "take care of correctness" but often are terribly wrong (ie, needy of correction) when one tries to use them on a computer and expects an ins and outs to be correct.

your a vandal or maybe trying to steal work can be my only conclusion. or your sadly mistaken it's your job to vandalize other's work to make yours look better maybe?

reguardelss. no thanks that's not a service i'm requesting any way you put it.

and while my algorithm might well not be the best (though very well may be if one needs it's advantages). i don't need your opinion on correctness or possible use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.160 (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

As above, the deletion was because of Wikipedia's rule against WP:No original research. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Search queries"

There is a big difference between a search query and a database key. The NGOLinks template uses database keys, not searches. The CongLinks template is similar, and is used for federal and state legislative bodies. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

the definition of edit warring

A) If two or three people claim that a source is not reliable, that does not constitute the final word as to whether there is a consensus on that point as far as Wikipedia is concerned if it is inconsistent with the policies agreed to by the larger community. If it is truly Wikipedia's consensus, then generally 1) if the source is notable enough to have an article that is more or less complete, there will normally be something in that article that suggests a reliability issue and/or 2) concerns would have been expressed on the RS noticeboard about the source. The editors who created the article about the source and did not see fit to provide any information that might suggest the source is less than authoritative are also part of the Wikipedia consensus, in other words. The editors who many many other times cited material to the source in other articles, and did so without being challenged by the rest of the community, are also part of the Wikipedia consensus, in other words. The editors who developed the WP:RS policy and did not see fit to state any guidelines there that would support the contention that the particular source was unreliable are also part of the Wikipedia consensus, in other words.

B) However "edit warring" is defined in the letter of the law, the spirit of the law is concerned with whether the editor is trying to work towards a resolution that could be commonly recognized or not. This in turn generally means discussion, and unfortunately your engagement on the Talk page on what you are edit warring over has been, unfortunately, nil. And, yes, it is edit warring if one is not engaging. I've written many many paragraphs on the matter on the Talk page while instead of engaging me there you go to my Talk page and threaten to have me blocked. I'll add that discussion means substantive discussion. For example:
X: "There's no evidence that this source is unreliable. It is elsewhere treated as reliable on and off Wikipedia."
Y: "Not reliable!"
X: "A person quoted in the source has said that the story was well done. The specific person quoted here was notified elsewhere of the story and given an opportunity to respond if he had any issue with how he was quoted."
Y: "Not reliable!"
X: "The source shares the same agenda or otherwise sympathizes with the person quoted, meaning there isn't an apparent motivation to misquote or take out of context."
Y: "Not reliable!"
If Y is reverted X with every declaration of "not reliable!", Y is edit warring despite "discussing" with X since the discussion is not substantive.

C) If in the above example, X has been making changes to the edit(s) X introduced while discussing, X is working towards an accommodation of Y's views. If Y simply repeatedly deletes every edit X introduces, "while discussing," Y is not trying to accommodate in return. Trying to accommodate in return would mean trying to make different changes to the edit instead of just deleting it completely.

I don't believe that I am offside "consensus" in my view here. If you disagree, then go ahead and seek to have me blocked. If a discussion results as to just what constitutes edit warring, I think that would be enlightening.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that others editing in good faith disagree with your interpretation at the Snowden biography. You cannot keep reverting under these conditions, even if you think you are right. You must seek (and achieve) local consensus before restoring the material. No, I do not think you will be able to count Wikipedia's founding principles as part of the consensus. The other peoples' contrary interpretations dash that possibility. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Austrian economics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 December 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 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: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

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) 00:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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

New User Questions

Hi Binksternet,

Thanks for the offer to answer questions. My interest in editing Wikipedia is very limited. I am forking some articles for another project, and sometimes update a web link in a reference as I discover the need during editing of the forked article.

I had hoped that these contributions might naturally lead to discussion with other contributors. This would be helpful because I am developing a wiki to aggregate information pertinent to workers' rights as a public service to workers and their advocates. It seems only natural that my small contributions to Wikipedia articles on workers' rights topics would lead to dialog with like minded contributors and that I might find an editor or two who could help me in developing my service. Unfortunately, I was honest about who I am and what I am doing, which lead to my user profile being deleted. The new profile I have created is so opaque it makes me want to barf. I mean, when I look to see who authored a contribution to an article and the name is Binksternet or wikiwacky or what have you, no offense, but I don't think the resource is reliable or that I am dealing with honest people willing to stand behind their actions. I think instead, "Amateur Hour." In my original user profile I included a brief synopsis of my educational credentials and honors, my organizational email address, the name of my organization, and it's web address. I get it that there are policies in place to keep users from using the resource promotionally, but the drawback is of course that users here are working anonymously in the dark, which leads to all kinds of other problems.

I guess about the only practical question in here is about where the line is. I see user profiles where people present themselves as Professor XYZ from the University of 123. Is that within the guideline? Did a third party post that info about them? Can I at least name the organization I direct? Can I assert my educational credentials, or does a third party need to do that? What's to stop me from going to a cyber cafe and posting about myself anonymously? Seems like a system that promotes unreliability and intellectual cowardice, and it certainly discourages me from participating in the community.

Thanks for any insight you can share.

Sean C. Murphy Sean C. Murphy (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you removed this post but I want to answer it. There is a lot of leeway given to Wikipedia users regarding what they do with their user page. To me it appears that experienced users get much more rope than new ones. My guess is that you ran afoul of somebody who thought you were going to be pushing your project without also benefiting Wikipedia. Your short edit history tells me otherwise, that you are updating URLs and helping references stay fresh.

My user page has a lot of biographical detail, but that is a fairly recent development. For about five years it looked like this, with no real life identification. For various reasons including my belief in accountability, last summer I put my real name out there for people to see. I think you should be able to do the same, that your user page should represent who you are. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Michael. After I posted this I looked at your profile and thought, 1. Of course there is only one Binkster (for others, I have known Bink in the real world for many years w/o knowing he was a wikigod) and 2. How the heck did this stay up while my humble user profile came down so fast? You have answered my questions. Thanks!! I can see you are one of the forces pushing for reliability here, and I applaud the candor of your profile page. I wonder if I should try to expand my profile a little. Even without naming my wiki's address, every time I update something I get a few more unique visitors to the site.

Sean C. Murphy Sean C. Murphy (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Zack Norman Article

Hi Binksternet! We were in contact briefly a few months ago regarding an article I'd written on actor/producer ZACK NORMAN with which I was having difficulties getting published onto Wikipedia. Below please find a new summary of the problem/history, including a link to the article in question. Any input you have would be greatly appreciated! Thanks again, Matthew WeissMatzohboy (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

AN OPEN LETTER TO WIKIPEDIA Re: ZACK NORMAN Article December 18, 2013

Link to article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Zack_Norman

To whom it may concern –

For over a year now, I have been trying to get an article about actor/producer ZACK NORMAN onto Wikipedia, only to be rebuffed time and again by numerous editors on various grounds. Wherever possible, I have made the corrections and adjustments suggested by the rejecting editors – some of whom were very helpful and friendly – and resubmitted, but there is one issue on which I keep running into opposition among your staff, and that is the question of Mr. Norman’s “notability”.

As an actor, Zack Norman has appeared in dozens of well-known films, many of which have their own independent articles on Wikipedia: Romancing the Stone, Cadillac Man, Festival in Cannes, Tracks, Sitting Ducks, etc. I realize that Wikipedia doesn’t accept itself as a reliable third-party reference source, but just to keep things clear and simple for the moment, if you check the cast lists in any one of these films’ articles, you will find Zack Norman’s name listed prominently among them, usually within the first half dozen credits. For example, in the article for Romancing the Stone, he is listed fourth, right after Michael Douglas, Kathleen Turner and Danny DeVito. But what is even more relevant here is the fact that Zack Norman is the only one of the first eight actors listed who does not have an article of his own on Wikipedia. In the article for the film Cadillac Man, Zack Norman is the only one of eleven listed without an independent article; for Festival in Cannes, he is one of two of eleven cast members without their own article. And so on and so forth.

What bothers me is not that an independent Zack Norman article doesn’t exist already (though this did initially surprise me somewhat) – but that the article I have submitted at least a half dozen times in various adjusted forms has been repeatedly rejected largely due to its subject’s lack of notability, which, based on the above information alone, is simply not the case. Granted, he may not be a box office draw like Michael Douglas or Robin Williams, but surely the fact that he’s appeared in a major role on screen many times in the company of such luminaries is notable in and of itself, not to mention that there are countless others who do have their own Wikipedia entries with far fewer credits and far less notable careers than Mr. Norman.

As for third-party references and source material, I have consistently supplied plenty of both with each submission. If one of your editors questioned or dismissed these sources as unreliable, I promptly substituted the references they suggested instead. Unfortunately, it appears the criteria for reliability among sources varies among your individual editors, to the point where they have even outright contradicted each other. I have tried not to let this frustrate or discourage me, and have each time done my utmost to remain accurate, thorough and professional in my revisions – on occasion too much so, it would seem, as one of your editors [Hasteur] saw fit to accuse me of trying to “dazzle” with an overabundance of such references ; another [DGG] seemed convinced my article had been plagiarized (which I can assure you it has not) when he wrote (and I quote verbatim): “The third problem is that most of the article reads it was copied from some other source. (i haven't found it, yet)” – it’s really that last, self-assured, vindictive “yet” that gets me; the suggestion is Ad Hominem at best, wallowing in the nethermost regions of Wikipedia’s own revered “Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement”.

Please accept my apology if I sound emotional here – I am trying very hard not to be, but I have to admit that at this point I am pretty much at my wits’ end as to how to proceed. The process has become all but exasperating, and in spite of my best and consistently cooperative efforts to have my article on Zack Norman accepted onto the Wikipedia site, it seems as if the mere mention of his or my name sends up some sort of red flag triggering automatic rejection. I’m sure this is not the case, but if you could please just let me know in the clearest terms possible what it is I need to do to pass muster here, I would be elaborately grateful. And I mean this absolutely sincerely – I’ve long desired to become a contributor to your site, and I am convinced that once I understand exactly what it is I’m doing wrong here, these barriers shall lift and the process for future contributions become vastly streamlined. And if I’m not doing anything wrong, could one of you please just allow my Zack Norman article to finally be published on Wikipedia? As it seems – to me at least – should have happened long ago.

Thank you so much for time and consideration in this matter, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Respectfully, Matthew D. Weiss a/k/a “matzohboy”

Matzohboy (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been intending to work on the Zack Norman bio and advance it to become a real article. Every time I fire up my browser there is a Zack Norman window waiting for my attention. It's just been difficult for me to get excited about the article because you put in a lot of peacock promotion about this guy's life, making him seem more influential and less like an also-ran. For instance, Norman produced the film Chief Zabu which was horrible; it was reviewed as "ineptly produced", placing the blame directly on the producer. Stuff like that must be put into the film so that Norman does not seem so amazingly good when he's not. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

furlong's father

hello;

in the midst of our ongoing disagreement about the references to furlong's ancestry, i notice that you changed "no information about his father" to "has never met his father".

was wondering which source you were using for that. because i don't remember it?

Lx 121 (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The first thing I want to say is that the sentence "No information has been provided about his father" is not quite true. Furlong's mom said he was of Russian descent.

• "Furlong has never met his real father, about whom Torres refuses to elaborate."[3]
• "Eleanor won't say who Eddie's father is."[4]
• "He's not in touch with his father."[5]
• Furlong is Eleanor's stepfather's last name. She never told Edward who his father was, only that the man was of Russian descent.[6]

Hope that helps. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• comment -- dear god almighty, you have just cited an imdb BIO as a reference.(!/?) o__0

more seriously, thank-you for the links. disregarding the imdb bio, all of these date back to his childhood (& possibly to the same story/interview), except for the last one, which uses "is not in touch" rather than "has never met".

so it's not entirely clear if what was true @ 13 is still true now. it's not clear, on the record, what his mother may or may not have told him, then or since; & it's not clear what else might (or might not) have changed about this, since he was 13.

that being the case, i'd suggest a "qualifying" wording along the lines of: 'At the time of his acting debut, at age 13, Furlong had never met his biological father, and no further information about his paternity has been provided(/made public).'

as regards "half-russian", he's quoted as saying that. which, taken in context, implies pretty heavily that he is referring to his father's side of the family; but it's not explicit. unless we have a better source than the imdb bio (explicitly connecting "russian" to his father), i think it's better to leave it as a quote about his ancestry, rather than "extrapolating" paternity.

Lx 121 (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You're invited: Art & Feminism Edit-a-thon

Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited!

File:Csaky madonna.jpg

Hi Binksternet! The first Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 in San Francisco. Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Wikipedians of all experience levels are invited! Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors. Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here! SarahStierch (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ellen Evert Hopman

Happy Holidays! I noticed that you were a past contributor to this article, Ellen Evert Hopman, which I just beefed up a bit. Please take a look at it if you get the chance and see if you can improve it (as I know you can). Thanks. Rosencomet (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Idahoan panties

Hey Binksternet, I know this was a couple of weeks ago but I wondered if you had meant to be so offensive at the time? I generally respect your edits so I assume not. It'd be nice to hear from you what you intended by it. --John (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The post directly prior to mine used a humorous mention of WP:Randy in Boise, so I made a joke about these sorts of people, the Randys in Boise, getting their panties in a bunch. It seemed funny at the time; less so when it requires an explanation. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw, and I took it on the chin at the time, but it was clearly a reference to me. Like most people, I don't think of myself as stupid or unsophisticated. Referring to me as Randy from Boise was slightly offensive to me and I wanted you to know that. --John (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not see it as referring to you. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case I apologise for being over-sensitive. It seems I read something into yours and the previous comment that was not intended by their authors. --John (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking back at the thread, holding your reaction in mind, I can see that the first Randy in Boise comment by Hawkeye7 could be seen as being directed at anybody who disagreed with him, which would include you and the OP. To me right now, it looks more like the OP was Hawkeye7's target. At the time, though, I just thought Hawkeye7 was making a general argument against caving in to the sort of simplistic editors who would be unhappy to see unexpected/incongruous facts, and would complain about them simply because they were unexpected and incongruous, rather than accept them because they were factual. Your arguments were more than that; you were talking about achieving proper weight given all the factors. Your argument is by far the strongest against the British flag icon in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I was making a general argument against caving in to the sort of simplistic editors who would be unhappy to see unexpected/incongruous facts, and would complain about them simply because they were unexpected and incongruous, rather than accept them because they were factual. It came after a week of run-ins with editors who could have found the answers to their questions by reading the article. (Why does it say MacArthur was a field marshal? Where is the proof that 0.999... = 1?) I know I'm a pain to argue with because I've usually read the books and the primary documents as well, but editors like Binksternet have been able to convince me with a sufficiently well-argued case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I thank you both for your considerate and collegial responses. I've been accused of many things but I don't think I am usually in Randy territory. Take care, --John (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project

I am looking for reviewers for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armed Forces Special Weapons Project/archive1. If you could take a look, it would be much appreciated. Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. It would be a new topic for me, so I would have fresh eyes rather than expert eyes. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

re Nelson Eddy, organizational system dynamics, and the Wikipedia's Indian Love Call

Hello, Binksternet, hoping this finds you well.

Re this edit, here's my take on the matter:

1. It's uncited, but it's probably true. It's not the sort of a thing that a person would make up for the purposes of vandalism, or is likely to be entirely wrong about. (Of course anything's possible, but that's my guess, which I think is reasonable.)
2. We do have a section about recordings, but its not a discography, which many of our articles on singers do have a discography section.

So it's not really a bad edit. It's something that could be built on, as I began to do here.

It's not really a very good edit either. According to the article Eddy made more than 290 recordings so cherry-picking just two at random, with no cites or release numbers, in a misnamed section ("Albums" rather than "Discography") is not actually a very useful contribution.

But it's probably made in good faith, and so as a matter of being welcoming to new users we ought to consider if such edits are salvageable.

Of course 72.92.229.41 may be a dynamic IP, different each time the person visits. Even if not, it's very likely that this may be the person's only contribution ever (or one of only a handful) regardless of what response he gets. Or he may go on to be a prolific contributor even if he gets reverted a lot at first. Or he may go on to be a prolific contributor of the bad sort.

But on the other hand, there's a non-zero chance that if he gets reverted a lot he'll go away but if he's welcomed he'll go on to become a useful contributor. Even if the chance is only 1% or less, consider the upside if he goes to make 10,000 or 20,000 or 50,000 useful edits. As a matter of organizational development we need to keep new editors coming, and this supersedes questions of whether their individual early edits are up to our standards, and so in my opinion we definitely want to put out a welcoming vibe to new editors who are making reasonable attempts to contribute. This is our own Indian Love Call, I guess; we have to call down the valley. Likely there'll be no response, but you never know.

It's not necessary (or usually possible) to take the time to begin a proper section as I did in this case, but as a matter of organizational development, contributions made in good faith by new editors, that are very likely to be true, and if we're not willing to either source ourselves or just let pass, should be tagged rather than reverted. Herostratus (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for beginning the discography section.

I'm not much for welcoming IP editors who make useful edits, though I did so twice in the last month: User_talk:66.185.162.140 and User_talk:74.111.118.177. I would like to see IP editors register an account, and I'm glad the standard IP welcome message includes that advice. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sexism article, possible Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation violation going on

Hey, Binksternet. Since I know that you keep an eye out with regard to the Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation matter, I'm stopping by your talk page to let you know that we might have some WP:Socking going on in this regard...if judging by these edits that an IP made and I reverted, as well as this post that same IP left on the Sexism talk page. I already know that CSDarrow is currently blocked for three months (by Bbb23); I don't think he can stay away from such Wikipedia topics for that long. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the new IP is annoying, but it is from Norwich, UK. CSDarrow spells in US style, not UK style. I don't think you have a sockpuppet case, just another MRM activist. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. Though I mentioned CSDarrow, I was more so suggesting that perhaps it's any of the MRM activist editors who are on probation with regard to topics such as these. The IP's style didn't/doesn't seem like CSDarrow's style to me either. However, the IP certainly doesn't come across to me as a new Wikipedia editor. Flyer22 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Early flying machines

Thank you, that's much better. This article is the wrong place to cover the detailed infighting over the Whitehead claims. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we agree that less is more. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)