User talk:Binksternet/Archive15

WT:FOUR

I left a question at WT:FOUR regarding your response yesterday.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Chris Stone/Record Plant

I have a proposition for you...would you be interested in writing the Chris Stone wiki entry if I provide you all the information and source material? I having a hard time getting the wiki format down. Let me know. Thanks! SamStone12 (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

For dead people's biographies I volunteer for free. Requests that come to me from living people are always met by requests for compensation, but so far without results. Binksternet (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to compensate you! I simply do not have the time to learn the intricacies of Wiki because I am currently buried! I would like to have this up as soon as possible. Please let me know your rate and how I might speak with you. Thank you so much! 99.190.172.100 (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

'Would you please let me know if you are still interested in this? Thanks, Sam SamStone12 (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll just put up a stub article. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". 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 December 19, 2011.

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. 01:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion RFAR

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

For fixing my Freudian slip. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh heh! Thanks for the quick smile. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

22:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life

Can you please explain why you reverted my entire edit here, including the minor parts of it? You're really making me think you're reverting me for the sake of reverting me. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked over every part of it, including the minor changes, and I found nothing improved. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Reverting me for the sake of reverting." No. Absolutely not. Bink? Never. No way. On the other hand... Now that i think about it... After all, anything is possible. Noone is perfect. And you know, NYY has pretty good instincts. It does kinda look a little suspicious. And Bink's response is a little dismissive. Maybe NYY is on to something. Bink & NYY have been bickering lately. Bink: why did you do it? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked over every part of it, including the minor changes, and I found nothing improved. Binksternet (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Such as the redundant link to Roe v. Wade? Not an improvement? NYyankees51 (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. A wikilink in the lead section, and another in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How about "Around the world" --> "In the U.S. and around the world"? NYyankees51 (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think comprehension was improved for the addition of four words. Needlessly wordy. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Would a thread on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard be helpful regarding the Planned Parenthood nonsense? I don't particularly want to start one myself. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I was thinking an RfC on ClaudioSantos was more to the point. Are there more POV warriors that you see as significant problems, more than Claudio? Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the RFCwould be more appropriate I think. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nom for Fantasy Studios

Hi Binksternet, I have reviewed your nomination for Fantasy Studios at Template talk:Did you know/Fantasy Studios and there are some slight quibbles. Could you see my comments and reply there? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:COIN#BLPN

This is really uncalled for. WP:TPO doesn't mention canvassing as a valid reason to refactor another editor's comment (generally the information has to actually be harmful), but even if you were to argue IAR, you completely removed anything useful in the post. I had absolutely no idea what discussion Whatamidoing was talking about until I went back into the noticeboard history to see what the post originally was. I've restored part of the message so that people can see which discussion it was. In my experience you're usually a pretty level-headed editor so I was surprised to see this from you. -- Atama頭 21:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for that removal. I had not read TPO in a great while so I did not think to look there to see what it allowed before removing what turned out to be far too much text from the canvassing comment. I won't do that again! Thanks for restoring context to the post. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's no problem and I didn't restore all of it (you did have a good point about canvassing so I made an IAR decision to not restore it all) but just enough to get the point across. Just wanted to let you know, thanks. -- Atama頭 22:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Statement

Ha, nice! I was just hunting around for more sources through Google and did a double-take "...we have an article on this, and this fact has never come up in that talkpage discussion?" I should have figured you'd take the initiative. :) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh heh... I realized the statement was notable of itself and jumped on it. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Good call. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

More grist for the mill. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2011 (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.

Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Wikiquette alert about User:Roscelese

Hello, Binksternet. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

RFAR on Abortion

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fantasy Studios

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2011 (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.

NYyankees51 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

After seeing you stalk Roscelese into her personal life there is no way I will respond in kind to your email message and so give you my email address.

You wrote, "I am here for the same reason you are, to improve Wikipedia", but I disagree. The evidence of your edits as BS24 and NYyankees51 tells me that you are here to put the pro-life movement in a good light to the detriment of truth. For instance, writing as your sockpuppet User:ArchConservative93 you took away a factual paragraph from Susan B. Anthony List and you added the non-neutral "The group blasted Sen. Ben Nelson for what they say is a fake compromise on abortion..." Blasted?! In that same diff you wrote that the SBA List outspent N.O.W. in every election since 1996, a one-sided fact. You did not write that such outspending did not always result in the SBA List-endorsed candidate winning against the N.O.W.-endorsed candidate. See how this is not neutral?

You as your sockpuppet IP Special:Contributions/71.178.26.97 removed a paragraph saying Susan B. Anthony was agnostic. It's true the supporting cite was from the biased Freedom From Religion Foundation, but you could have tagged it rather than removed it. Or you could have found the right cite in about 30 seconds: Elizabeth Cady Stanton is often quoted saying, "Miss Anthony is an agnostic".

You as your sockpuppet User:BS24 removed a paragraph saying Bobby Schilling was seen as the underdog in his election race. The cite was well supported by a reliable source. You gave no explanation for the removal.

I could go on and on and on but I do not wish to spend my time pointing out the things that you are already perfectly aware of. As well, I doubt the effectiveness of rubbing the puppy's nose in its mistakes. Non-neutral edits such as this one from a week ago show me the dog is set in its ways. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, A) why are you looking up edits from almost two years ago and B) is every edit I make that you don't like an example of POV pushing? Seriously, counter my edits based on content, not on an assumption of conspiracy. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

One guy is not a conspiracy. I am showing by these few sample edits that you are one guy who has a habit of making Wikipedia a battleground, a habit that has not faltered over three years and continues still. Taken in sum, the content of your abortion topic and neocon edits show your hand. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Who said I'm a neocon? Please stop acting like you're a valiant fighter for neutrality. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the edits you cited - I don't see how "blasted" is somehow pushing an agenda; the agnostic paragraph contained bogus and unsourced assertions and I wouldn't have removed it if it were cited; I can't tell you why I removed the underdog thing but I can tell you that I'm the one who added it in the first place; and the one from last week as an undue weight rationale. Please explain to me how any of these are pushing an agenda. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, I find your digging for dirt on me to be very bizarre - it's not a quick process to look at everything and shows an unnatural obsession with trying to get me. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's easy to pick out a few of your politically motivated edits. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"unnatural obsession" -- do you know something the rest of us don't? – Lionel ^(talk) 01:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

How would I know? Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, most recently you went looking through my archives for the sockpuppetry case (which I'll explain to you off-wiki Lionel if you care to know). He also filed a lengthy COI report awhile back, and took the time to find old edits above that he disagreed with. All of these things take a significant amount of time, so either he has too much time on his hands, or has such contempt for me and an unnatural obsession with spreading that contempt that he would use hours of his life to do these things I mention. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You missed the word "easy". It is easy to find your non-neutral politically motivated edits. There are so many of them. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't address the archives digging and the COI report. Those must have taken at least a couple hours. Only an obsessive editor would go to that length. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Easy. E.A.S.Y. EASY. You're missing the whole point. I spent a few minutes. You are an easy target.

Okay, Mom says you all have to jump out of the pool today and go home. Come back another day to swim. Perhaps you all can bring your flippers next time and swim in the deep end. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Edits

Dear Binksternet, I hope this message finds you doing well. Would you mind explaining your edits? From look at the difference, it seems that you have made a lot of changes to the article. I am concerned about the references, specifically. Did you remove any references in your changes? Also, I noticed that you modified the introduction. The current introduction was selected after months of discussion. It might help to see the archives as well as the current decision. As such, it might be best to restore the previous version. I would appreciate a response from you. Thanks for your time and understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The article talk page is the place for this discussion. In the meantime, read WP:LEAD for why I chose to summarize the article in the lead rather than have two identical sentences, one in the lead and one in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ClaudioSantos_and_eugenics Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 05:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

About NYYankees51

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Conservative_Targeting_against_Progressive_Topics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Flowingfire (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A Catholic Statement...

" (Many pro-choice people think abortion is personally and morally bad, but should be allowed as a last-ditch solution. It's not just the Catholic Church who thinks it is immoral.)"

I'm not sure what you mean - how does this prevent us from saying the Church finds it gravely immoral? NYyankees51 (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Because both sides of the pro-life/pro-choice continuum contain people who think abortion is gravely immoral. There is no benefit to the reader to define the difference if the named difference may be the same. The difference is that one side thinks it should be legal and available. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but it's an understatement to say the Church is simply against abortion. Abortion is considered a mortal sin under the right conditions. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor misattribution

I thought you had moved my comment about the duplicate ex-gays list from where I put it to a better position after your comment, but actually I seem to duplicated my own comment, probably while trying to move it. If you had moved my comment to follow yours, I would have approved because that's a better place for it, so please forgive the misattribution, which I doubt that anyone will notice. Ornithikos (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw that, I questioned that, but in the big picture it is not so hugely important. I just hope that your opinion is counted when the closing admin swoops through and totals all the thoughts. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Coyote springs

thanks for changes you made can you also add some things to page that were take out and i have refs for you if you like as well (Fremontfunkid911 (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)).

No, I don't think it is a good idea for me to help an editor who is likely a sockpuppet of Youtubek, permanently blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

watever then i just trying get page updated i would never treat new user like that (Fremontfunkid911 (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)).

I don't think you are a new user. I think you are another sockpuppet of Youtubek. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jeanne L. Noble

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Hi. There is a request for mediation at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_mediation:_Non-lethal_weapon_page.3B that mentions you.   — Jeff G.  ツ 01:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Now there is a request for mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-08-20/ that mentions you.   — Jeff G.  ツ 12:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion

Dear Binskternet, since it seems you have good knowledge about tour sound equipments and technicalities, what do you think of incorporating this source into Sticky & Sweet Tour? On that note, can you find me some technical info for Madonna's concert tours circa 1993? I don't know if I'm asking too much, but would like any help. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 18:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If that article was not so obviously written by the PR department of Digico, it would be better than it is. However, I think it can be used for non-controversial additions the same way a primary source can.

Let me see if there's anything I can find for 1993-ish tour data. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Related?

Do you think that this thread at ANI is related to the current issue here? I notice the claim in the ANI thread of Sci-fi writer meatpuppets and lo & behold, I see this pathos (gibberish). A google search is revealing....
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that editor Reddson is a meatpuppet of Janet Morris. Morris's company M2 Technologies does not have an office in the state where a Google search indicates that Reddson has been employed as a security guard. I think his concern with nonlethal weapons is purely personal and professional rather than in a Morris-promoting capacity.

The results of the Google search took away any remaining expectation of mine that Reddson might be useful to Wikipedia. Wow. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking....like you said, Wow.

His ruckus must be timed well with M2 meatpuppets which had me wondering if this was one of them. Coincidence, then. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Answer

User_talk:Yug#Selective_omission, cheer ! Yug (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Happy thanks to You. Yug (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

False Light/Actual Malice

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Goad

I added a new section called "Criminal Conviction." All the evidence is supported by documented police records, magazine articles, and recorded voicemail messages and will be presented in court if it comes to that, at which point I have a very good legal case that you're presenting the subject in a false light with actual malice. John Nevard has seen fit to delete items that are already fully sourced but that add a fuller picture to the apparently monochromatic angle he seems to be shooting for. He's seen the evidence, and by deliberately deleting it, that's about as "False Light/Actual Malice" as it gets.

Let's hope it doesn't get to the litigation phase, but I will take this to the mat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinScintilla (talk • contribs) 17:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT, you are now blocked for making a legal threat. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Madonna image

Actually, the image is from Wikipedia's files, it's a portrait of actress Olga Baclanova, who famously looked like Madonna's twin sister (people watching the 1928 movie "The Man Who Laughs" are shocked to suddenly see Madonna in a film from the dawn of the sound era). I don't know why it registered somehow as a external picture but I did get it from Wikipedia's files (I've never gotten around to threading the labrynth of trying to upload pictures into Wikipedia; just looking at a for a minute or two was enough for me--which is one reason, I guess, that it's so difficult to illustrate articles in the face of all the deletions). Upsmiler (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with your deleting it, of course, but I'm curious, though, and can't resist asking: do you see any resemblance? Upsmiler (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course I did! However, Wikipedia goes by previously published material, not newly thought-up stuff. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I never thought of that at the time but of course you're right. The weird thing about Baclanova's astonishing resemblance to Madonna is that it only really exists in that one film, but in that one they look identical, almost as though Madonna had time traveled back to replace Baclanova (who also mainly used one name) in that one movie. Baclanova also played the lead in Tod Browning's legendary "Freaks" four years later but looks like a slightly different person. Upsmiler (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Marjorie Dannenfelser AfD

I'm just curious why you don't think that the five sentence Newsweek piece added to the major Washington Post piece is enough to establish notability, especially considering the wide variety of briefer mentions in reliable sources? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Revision

Hello Binksternet! Thanks for your efforts at the militant atheism talk page. I just wanted to let you know that I moved your revision to a new section of the page. If you don't mind, you can move your vote under the section discussing my revision and wikilink there in order to point them to your revision. Take care, Anupam^Talk 16:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I almost did that myself. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism , such as the edit at Unmanned aerial vehicle, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. SudoGhost 22:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So you think company promotion on Wikipedia should be given the good faith nod? I will carefully consider your advice. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism has a specific definition. Promotional material is not vandalism. - SudoGhost 23:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that this edit was not an appropriate use of the rollback feature and most certainly should not have been labelled as vandalism. While this user seems to be mainly interested with including information relating to a company that he seems to be affiliated with, he is not being overly-promotional about the topic and even submitted an article from the company to be reviewed as he is instructed to do. The user edited information on Operation AntiSec that, while it related to said company again, made the part of the article dealing with the company more accurate and corrected some important errors. He needs direction on how to address potential conflict of interest but does not appear to be a vandal. It seems to me that he was editing in good faith, which should be assumed. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You got it, guys. I will be more careful in the future with reversions of company promotion. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Questioning your reversions

Dear Binksternet: Based upon Wikipedia guidelines for article submission I'm deeply confused over your comments and assessment that 3 of my contributions could have been even been remotely viewed as promotional. I provided edits to three articles to include "Piracy, UAVs, and AntiSec" Regarding the use of UAVs, in particular the ShadowHawk platform for anti-piracy, there are 208 news articles covering this topic specifically and referencing the use of the ShadowHawk system. I realize that you are by no means a substantive expert in the field but before removing a contribution I strongly recommend performing the research as I have. If 208 separate and independent articles citing this usage are not enough as reference please advise. Further to the matter of contributions, I provided a minor but vital edit to the AntiSec article citing a recent "hack" into Vanguard Defense Industries by "AntiSec". My contribution noted an update on the actual activity to include cited references pertaining to the private information and in particular, refuting the claims made by the hacker group. Interestingly enough, you deleted my contribution but keep the hearsay claims of the hacker group which provided zero references. For the benefit of myself and other contributors, can you please explain why hearsay from hackers holds greater credibility with Wikipedia than news articles from major news outlets?

Regards,

Cryhavoclstdow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryhavoclstdow (talk • contribs) 15:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

First off you should know that the unmanned aerial vehicle article is the frequent target of those who wish to promote their designs or concepts. In watching the article over the last three years, including the reversion of blatant promotions such as this, I have grown less and less accepting of such material, more prone to deletion. I apologize for that attitude of mine.

I don't know why you mention the Operation AntiSec article: I have not touched it, let alone deleted your hearsay in favor of previously written hearsay. Talk to User:Scapler about his reasoning.

Regarding your addition to the piracy article, I felt that your ShadowHawk example was promotional. A number of companies such as Hawk Aerospace and others are in the field, so putting only your company, Vanguard Defense Industries, as the example was too much emphasis. This article by the BBC could have been used to describe how UAVs can be used against pirates, without any company's example being given. The short 2.5-hour duration of Shadowhawk flights is a practical limit to anti-piracy usefulness, and of course it is vulnerable to direct fire from pirates. The BBC article talks more hopefully about robotic boats than about UAVs. This article in SAT News could be used to say that UAVs directed in swarms may be used against pirates who also use swarming tactics.

Back to UAV:

• This edit of yours added a bit about UAVs against pirates supported by a Daily Mail article which only mentioned Vanguard and no other companies, yet there are other companies in the field. A truly neutral editor would have written about the general use, not a model-specific use.
• In this edit, you added a computer simulation image to the UAV article, and you provided it with a misleading caption which inferred that the image was an actual photograph of the ShadowHawk in operation off East Africa.

These two reasons were why I reverted your changes in toto. I can see now that your bit about the Montgomery County Sheriff's Department was in line with other text in the article mentioning other companies and models of UAVs as examples. I should not have deleted that part. I will do a bit of work on the article and mention UAVs in domestic police work as well as against pirates. Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Repellant

Thanks for your message - although I can't agree at all,
The word repellant appears in Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/R which I am currently working my way through.
If you look the word repellant up in Wiktionary, [1] you will see it states that repellant is "a Common misspelling of repellent".
I will, therefore, continue to change this mis-spelling.
Arjayay (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You have more faith in online sources than I do. Before notifying you, I looked the word up in my three hardbound dictionaries, including Webster's New Collegiate, Webster's New World, and the Oxford Illustrated. Oxford does not support the alternate spelling but both copies of Webster's do, leading me to believe that the alternate spelling is possibly an Americanism. I would, if I were you, let up on the spelling changes. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

But even if both Wikipedia and Wiktionary are wrong, and you are right about the US/UK variation, MOS:COMMONALITY states that we should use the common term - which is repellent.
Arjayay (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:ENGVAR may have a bearing on the spelling if the alternate is only American. Certainly there is no need to correct a quote or a title. I have only been reverting your addition of the warning term [sic], not correcting your minor spelling corrections in article body text. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"I agree with 'activism'"

Could you explain why? This isn't indicated by any of the three sources cited. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I was mistaken. The news item said "crackdown on activists" but I now think that phrase applied to O'Rourke, not the woman.

Laurence Tribe, Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School, writes that the woman in question, Carole Morreal, simply told a newspaper reporter that she supported the right to choose, and her opinion appeared in the paper. She was not called an activist, and her name only appears in Tribe's book—nowhere else. If she were really an activist, her name would be in multiple places. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

She could always have been a very minor local activist, but yeah, it's not in the source - the sources say her beliefs were pro-choice. Anyway, fixed that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Another spelling of the woman's name gives far better results: Carol Morreale:

• The right to lifers: who they are, how they operate, where they get their money, by Connie Paige in 1983, page 59.
• Newsweek 1974, volume 84, issues 10 to 18, page 74. "In September 1974, the provincial supervisor of the Jesuits of the West Side of Manhattan in New York City dismissed a priest, the Reverend Joseph O'Rourke, who baptized the son of a Massachusetts woman, Carol Morreale [...] At one, 20- year-old Carol Morreale and her mother were approached by a local newspaper reporter. Yes, they replied to his questions, they both believed that women have a right to choose whether or not to have an abortion." Carol's baby was named Nathaniel.
• New Times, volume 3, 1974, page 8. "Into this symbolic struggle walked Mrs. Carol Morreale, of Marlboro, Mass., and her baby, who were very beautiful, and thus very powerful, and thus well worth fighting over. [...] Mrs. Carol Morreale, 20, happened to be asked her opinion of the situation by a local reporter."
• Time, volume 104, 1974, page 988. "Was she the same Carol Morreale who had been quoted in a Marlboro newspaper as supporting the establishment of an abortion-information clinic in the city?" Her husband's name was Daniel Morreale.
• Enemies of choice: the right-to-life movement and its threat to abortion, 1982, page 106.
• The Critic, volume 36, 1977, page 217. "On the other hand, O'Rourke maintains that it makes 'eminent sense theologically to baptize the children of free-choice mothers,' as the baby of Mrs. Carol Morreale of Marlboro. 'The idea of using the sacraments punitively is appalling.'"

There are many more of these. None of them says Morreale was an activist. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's something with more detail. Apparently, Carol Morreale was a personal fan of Bill Baird (activist). She was not an activist, just embroiled in the backlash of the earlier newspaper story:

• MARLBORO, Mass. (AP) August 14, 1974 [2]

William R. Baird, who advocates freedom of choice on abortion, has appealed for a Roman Catholic priest to come forward and baptize a 3-month-old baby denied the rite because his mother made public statements supporting Baird. "I have had hundreds of calls of support, including some from priests, but not one call from a priest who will do it," Baird said. Two Boston priests refused to baptize Nathaniel Morreale of Marlboro last Sunday, saying they couldn't be "morally certain" the child would be properly raised in the Catholic faith because of his mother's views on abortion. "I have never advocated abortion," said the 20-year-old mother, Carol Morreale. "I support Bill Baird, who also has never advocated abortion. His position is freedom of choice for the individual." The father, Daniel Morreale, has said he supports his wife's stand. Humberto Cardinal Medeiros, archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston told a television reporter Tuesday night that "no priest can come to this diocese without my permission" to perform the baptism and predicted that none would. A spokesman for the Boston Archdiocese said it was a "difficult point" but concluded that advocating freedom of choice "probably" was against the teachings of the church. Auxiliary Bishop Joseph Maguire visited Mrs. Morreale on Tuesday. He said it was a pastoral visit. She said he asked her to renounce Baird and said if she did her baby would be baptized. "I will not renounce my support of Bill Baird," Mrs. Morreale said.

Interesting. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Socking?

At first glance, it appears to me that Peoplefromarizona (talk · contribs) is the same person as indef-blocked Fanoftheworld (talk · contribs). I haven't taken the trouble to investigate the reasons for or history of Fanoftheworld's block, but I can see that you've been involved with the Steinway & Sons article during both accounts' periods of editing. Does this look like a problem to you, or is it just a case of everyone's allowing the user's return as long as he doesn't engage in disruptive behavior? Deor (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are correct on all counts. I have not submitted an SPI on Peoplefromarizona because I did not recognize him right away. By the time I did, I figured the Fanoftheworld trail was cold. At this point, I am keeping an eye on Peoplefromarizona only in regard to excessive promotion of Steinway and the associated conflict of interest. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to make sure that someone was watching what needed to be watched. Deor (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering I am removing content that Fanoftheworld (talk · contribs) has written (text in the article and primary references) and that I am adding secondary references (see the very well-searched introduction including the infobox), I don't understand why you think I should be a sock puppet of a "promotion-user". Do you think I am also a sock puppet of Drhoehl (talk · contribs) who has written a lot of positive things about Steinway's piano model D-274 in the article Steinway D-274... --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I, too, have changed my own edits over the years. It shows the process of learning Wikipedia's methods. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Steinway company type

Why did you change "Private" to "Subsidiary" in the article Steinway & Sons?[3]

The page Template:Infobox company gives this explanation of what to write in the field "Type":
"type
Type of company, Public, Private, Joint Venture or similar. (See ownership to list ownership percentages for private companies and joint ventures, if applicable.)
Example: [[Public company|Public]]
Example: [[Privately held company|Private]] (subsidiary of [[Berkshire Hathaway]])"

I was kind to write a link to the page Template:Infobox company in the field for summery,[4] so you are aware (or should be aware) of what the page Template:Infobox company says about the field "Type" in the infobox for companies. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretation of Template:Infobox company is more limited than necessary. The choices for the "company type" parameter are not only 'Public' or 'Private' or 'Joint Venture'. The options are open to those terms, and any other normal and common description of a company's type, including 'Subsidiary'. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Hey Bink--nice change of pace at that AfD, both of us on the same side of an issue. Hope it isn't the last time. Noticed above you & Ros getting into it a little. If you need someone to talk to you I'm there for you.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My tears have not yet soaked through my pillow, but if they do... Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No need to put on appearances. We're all friends here. I see Nat just reverted. Of all people, Nat. Buck up, Bink. (gosh I love the sound of that) I'm going to keep an eye on my talk page... just in case... You know where to find me. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Agnes Mary Mansour

No question she's notable, but the tone of the article is a little too hagiographic. Probably you'd do a better job fixing it that I would, but if you don't get to it, I'll give it a try. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources I found said she was ineffective or mean spirited or ...some bad thing. Sometimes a cigar is an especially fine cigar. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just want to thank you for the Clarence W. W. Mayhew article, which I became aware of from your recent comments on the Oakland "Talk" page. I frequently attend Slavic Department talks at the Alumni Club on the Berkeley campus and have always admired the architecture. Will search for pics of the Manor house. Apostle12 (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, good luck with that, really! I guess I could try and scan a Manor house image from UC Library's archives of old architectural journals, but I rarely get on campus for that, and I was hoping to figure out what the address was so I could drive there and snap my own photo. I have never been able to find out the address, though. Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Did find one photo. Apparently it is located in the Monte Vista neighborhood. Will let you know if I learn more. Apostle12 (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Agnes Mary Mansour

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion, you may be blocked from editing. The article is chock full of your syntheses and liberties taken with source material. Please stop. Cloonmore (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is darn good, written with some 20 to 30 windows open on my computer, cross-checking facts right and left. If you think something is not very well founded, it is likely that a reference somewhere else in the article supports the fact, and that all it needs is a bit of named ref. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If the article's darn good, it's mostly because of all the work by other editors to remove all the POV and primary sourced materials you introduced and correct all your inaccuarate paraphrases. Here's a suggestion: don't write articles with 20 or 30 windows open. It's a recipe for a sloppy mess. Be more careful in the way you use sources. Cloonmore (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You're patting yourself on the back something fierce, but even you must admit that the article did not exist before I wrote it. Personally, I consider the changes to be largely deleterious.

The manner in which I write articles is something I will likely continue, but thanks for the advice. Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion, you may be blocked from editing. Cloonmore (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NPA, I will continue to delete posts that are personal attacks. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What was a personal attack? Cloonmore (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, but do remember Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess you haven't seen "don't cite essays as if they were policy" and, better yet, "do template the regulars". For grins. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Bink, how about "Don't treat thumb rules, WP methods and guidelines as if they were implacable laws" and could/have to be applied without thinking?Strausszek (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at Talk:Non-lethal_weapon#Mediation_case_now_open.
Message added 20:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TransporterMan (TALK) 20:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Additions to BERKELEY, CA

You reverted my additions to the article on Berkeley, CA (as well as some proximate stuff which I did not contribute). Can I get an explanation?--Arch1303 (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You made statements that were not supported by cites or footnotes referring to published data. For instance, you said that Berkeley "saw a decline of over 13,000 (11.5%)" in its population. What study was that? You said rent control was a "major" factor in people leaving Berkeley. Really? I rather think not... this seems very unlikely, and was the biggest reason I reverted your addition. Residents don't abandon a city that has reasonable rent. Binksternet (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

First the documentation of the population loss is from the US census and is presented in a sidebar in the very article we are discussing. I hardly thought further documentation necessary.

Second, I did not say that rent control caused renters to leave town but rather that is was a major contributor to the population loss shown by the census. What common happened was that tenants left Berkeley for reasons having nothing to due with rent control but, because the rent was more reasonable each year and virtually frozen, the departing tenants were not replaced in multi-person apartments. Two-bedroom/two-bath apartments built to serve a student market twenty years earlier commonly housed four individuals. With a few years after the imposition of rent controls, this occupancy was usually down to two. To reiterate, rent control did not force or even encourage tenants to move (actually quite the opposite) but it very much encouraged remaining tenants not to replace their roommates. As I said in my edit, the number of persons/household in rental housing in Berkeley dropped dramatically. The census confirms this.

Furthermore, there were a good number of single-family houses in Berkeley rented to groups of students. When the rents were essentially frozen and the prospects of higher rents diminished, many of these houses were sold to owner-occupants. In fact the census shows about 4,000 fewer single family homes rented in Berkeley in 1990 than in 1980. Owner-occupied house have fewer residents than rented houses. In a very strong hosuing market, house were sold and the money easily invested in more promising and productive ways. The sale of rented houses during the 1980s can account for half the population loss.

I believe I have answered your stated problems with my edit. I am new at this while your impressive history on Wikipedia makes you one of the most prolific contributors anywhere (for which I offer my thanks). As I believe my edit was suffieciently rightous, I plan to repost it unless I hear from you a reason I should not do so. If this is not the accepted procedure, please enlighten me as to the proper way to go about this--Arch1303 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC).

Focusing on your conclusions about why the population dropped in Berkeley, pinning much of the drop on rent control, do you have a study showing this connection? If not, the conclusion does not meet Wikipedia's guideline at WP:No original research, that is, your conclusions cannot be placed in the Berkeley article unless they have been published elsewhere. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You again? Do you scan the entirety of Wikipedia every day or are there just certain subjects for which you have decided to be the final authority. Do I have to explain everything to you that you do not understand?

One: The California Supreme Court found that, efforts by the City of Santa Monica notwithstanding, any provider of rental housing in California had the right to cease doing so. The court imposed certain limits -- all units in a given property had to be withdrawn from the rental market; an owner could pick and choose -- but ambiguities remained. The State legislature passed the so-called Ellis Act which gave cities in California very limited powers to mitigate the effect on the displaced tenant. For example, a relocation fee was allowed but limited. As the article read, it said that cities had the ability to regulate Ellis evictions. They do not. I changed it to a limited ability to regulate. A limited ability to mitigate would be even more accurate. The statement as previously written implied city control. The combination of the Court decision and the Ellis Act very severely limited a city's response to property owners going out of the rental business. My addition of one word made the statement accurate in tone and fact. What specific knowledge did you have to remove it?

Two: What problem could you possibly have with the presentation of the preampble to relavant Oregon legislation? Were they too polemical?

Three: Rent control as an untargeted income transfer has been an issue debated in rent control circles for decades. Even rent control proponents acknowledge this as a shortcoming. Did you notice the section I edited was called ARGUMENTS AGAINST? I submitted a [very legitimate] argument and your characteriztion of it as a polemic is way off base. Compare this argument to some of those in the ARGUMENTS FOR section; talk about unlikely and speculative. And so again I ask, what's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch1303 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My previous response was purely about Berkeley, California, and it directed you to check out the guideline at WP:No original research. Since you appear certain that rent control has been debated in prominent places (of course it has) then it remains for you to locate those discussions that are specifically about Berkeley if you want to add them to the Berkeley article. General rent control debate points are not relevant to the city article if there is no mention of Berkeley. If you know of Berkeley rent control arguments that can be found in books, or magazine articles, or reports in periodicals, then please bring them to the article and use them to add information.

At the article about rent control, I performed this edit to remove extraordinary claims and forceful words that were not supported by cites, and not neutral. At all times, Wikipedia's goal is to follow the fundamental policy described at WP:Neutral point of view. We try to tell both sides as neutrally, fairly and proportionally as possible. It is clear that you are angry about rent control when you write "absolutely prohibit rent control", "preempting", "mandating a private subsidy from the property owner to the tenant", and "presumes to promote". Wikipedia is not the place for angry words spoken in Wikipedia's editorial voice. The text you added used poor English, it was not neutral, and it introduced original research in the form of the notional six-figure law student and the more humble retired landlord.

The Oregon legislature's conclusions are interesting but they are politically motivated. They are also very unusual, lying at one extreme, and so the lengthy quote is WP:Undue weight devoted to Oregon's decision. If extremes are discussed, they should be identified as such.

The way to introduce rent control opinions and debate is to quote prominent experts on the topic, citing their quotes to WP:Reliable sources. As much as possible, a neutral and balanced description of the conflicting opinions must be present, with high quality scholarly research given top status. Cheers – Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle, warnings etc

Twinkle "hides" the WP:NPA near the bottom of the list of templates in each level, except in the single notice, so I know exactly what you mean - just notice that there is a scroll bar in the right side of the list of templates, and scroll down to the bottom. If you cannot still find them, let me know because you might have a technical issue. However take care not to repeat the error - if you cannot find an appropriate template in Twinkle, simply write out the message saying the same thing.

Here is a list of the templates: Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Multi-level_templates

As you can see, while some users do not take well to templates, there is a clear difference in language and tone between a high level and a low level template. In the case of personal attacks:

Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Multi-level_templates#Personal_attacks

You can clearly see how it can bee misinterpreted as "hostile" even if not the intent. Cheers!--Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 05:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That helps! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

EWTN/Women's eNews

I'm confused as to why you say EWTN can't be used for reporting of a subject because it is biased, but you used Women's eNews, which is just as biased, in the SBA List article(s). NYyankees51 (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Not trying to make a gotcha move or something, would just like to hear your rationale. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This question should be asked at the relevant noticeboard or article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm asking you about your inconsistency. NYyankees51 (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as per the open WQA, you shouldn't do this. You should focus content issues in the appropriate place, and Bink's response was extremely appropriate in this sense. WP:CIVIL tells us to fucs on the content not the editor, and content should be discussed were everyone can see them. Being inconsistent is allowed, even if indeed it can affect one's credibility (and I do know or care if Bink was inconsistent or not). However, not honoring a request to discuss the topic elsewhere is not very civil, and that is indeed not allowed.--Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 14:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing how the question isn't civil. It's an apparent inconsistency, and this is the appropriate venue to ask about it. It wasn't intended to be uncivil. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ultimate Ears WP:DRN Submission

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Ultimate Ears". Thank you. --AMuteRealist (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

AFA article tag

The tag is appropriate and the problems with the article have been listed on the talk page. The tag allows other editors to see the problem and join the discussion. Simply saying you disagree does not mean you can remove the tag. Please do not remove it again. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with AV3000. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right! Sorry 'bout that.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Masses of very poor quality articles

Over at AN you recently said, "I am disappointed at his urge to create a mass of very poor quality articles. It's much better for the project to create fewer articles with each one being fair quality." I heartily agree with that view, having long been troubled by the numbers of people who use automated tools to create masses of such articles (most of which turn out to be permanent single-sentence substubs, usually with no source cited), but I've never been able to find a centralized discussion in which this practice has been explicitly approved by the community. Are you aware of any such discussion, or of any policy/guideline that deals with the practice? Deor (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't remember one significant discussion about it, only odd comments here and there. It's worth an essay. Binksternet (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Response

It appears that Paresecboy has archived the conversation and i dont blame him but for your reference this is how i replied to your comment.

No, I saw this lengthy conversation and I felt that you were not 'getting it' so I jumped in to reinforce the message. I can see the futility now. Binksternet (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah i bet you did. Who do you think i am? Im not stupid even if your all seem to think i am. I got the message long ago and long before you commented. Did you not read what i said? I said i understand in accordance to WP:STICK ill back off and then i said two words "Im out" which basicially means conversation over so there was no need to add to this debacle.

As Parsecboy said to me and i think it should apply to you as well , Leave the page alone, Binksternet - theres's nothing for you to gain here. Goldblooded (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just thought you'd might like to know. Goldblooded (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rachel MacNair

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Our JFK IP editor

I've left a very pointed note on their talk page. They hit multiple pages yesterday, perhaps WP:AIV if they continue? Ravensfire (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection for those pages is the next move. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/John Shipp

This article should not have been 'ed; it's a word-for-word copy of a public domain encyclopedia entry, and the DYK rules specify that "inclusions of free data sources" are not allowed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I had not seen that part of the rules until now. Binksternet (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For dealing with the User:Marshallsumter issues. Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 04:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. You did your part, for sure! Binksternet (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

PP

Did you mean to do this? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, per my edit summary. Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't the summary "Combine largest abortion provider and largest abortion preventer"? I guess I would have expected the Crepeau quote, but whatever. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody had put both of the 'largest' bits in the lead section: the largest abortion provider and the largest abortion preventer. The Crepeau quote would be appropriate there, as you intimate, but I liked the Richards quote. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Abortion Debate, section Religious Beliefs

Hi,

I noticed you did some work on the Abortion debate article and was hoping you could add your opinion to my proposal on the talk page.

Thanks! Can-Dutch (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the indenting snafu

Binksternet: Sorry about goofing up your indentation level in Talk:Planned_Parenthood. I assumed you were a novice editor that had indented improperly. Please accept my apologies. --Noleander (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No sweat! Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on September 25, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 25, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Henry Edwards (1827–1891) was an English-born stage actor, writer and entomologist who gained fame in Australia, San Francisco and New York City for his theater work. Edwards was drawn to the theater early in life, and he appeared in amateur productions in London. After sailing to Australia, Edwards appeared professionally in Shakespearean plays and light comedies primarily in Melbourne and Sydney. Throughout his childhood in England and his acting career in Australia, he was greatly interested in collecting insects, and the National Museum of Victoria used the results of his Australian fieldwork as part of the genesis of their collection. After writing a series of influential studies on Pacific Coast butterflies and moths he was elected life member of the California Academy of Sciences. Relocating eastward, a brief time spent in Boston theater led to a connection to Wallack's Theatre and further renown in New York City. There, Edwards edited three volumes of the journal Papilio and published a major work about the life of the butterfly. His large collection of insect specimens served as the foundation of the American Museum of Natural History's butterfly and moth studies. (more...)

Cool! Looks okay to me.

This is a surprise. I didn't expect this article to show on the Main page for a while yet! Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Charlie Richmond [Inventor]

Thanks for this, Bink. I did notice it had been radically edited and in its present form it's probably more appropriate to delete it ;-) Oh well..... Charlie Richmond (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I could find published sources and restore parts of it. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

James Randi, Redundancy dept.

Thanks for catching my duplicate link with this edit. --Javaweb (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

No sweat! Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Climate charts

Hi. Per Wikipedia:USCITY#Climate I don't see why you're making reverts like this. I think we can safely accept both methods for presenting information. Analogously, we accept pictures to assist visual learners. Killiondude (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The climate charts are analogous to the race charts I have been deleting, but the race charts built by the IP editor have only one year and do not show any kind of progression. Binksternet (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Hi.

I assume WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Alex_Jones.27_Infowars.com may soon become archived. Please, read my today's additions. Of course, the very best way to handle the problem (if you find the time), is demonstrated by your fine edit. Kind regards.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-21 12:57 (UTC)

Please Wait

Dear User:Binksternet, please wait for administrator approval before starting two new RfC's with one already occurring. I am not opposed to having that discussion. However, I think we should do so after the current one is closed. I would appreciate if you could please wait for the administrator's response and assume good faith. If I am wrong, I will revert my edit if he/she has determined that doing so is appropriate (please see User_talk:Master_of_Puppets#Response). Please understand that the article is very heated right now and asking an administrator to mediate the dispute is the most best thing to do at the moment. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No, thank you. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Your Edits On the Traynor Amplifiers Page

- The text copied from Yorkville Sound that you deleted was primarily about the Traynor amplifiers, created by Pete Traynor. It was not a direct copy, but had some minor modifications made to it. I'm going to revert your deletion and further modify the text to be as Traynor brand specific as I can.

- If you remove all text other than a list, then yes . . . the page should be renamed to 'List of Traynor products'. However, with the additional content that I will be adding as part of the previous point, it would make sense to use the heading Traynor Amplifiers. Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please re-examine

You recently voted in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefano Pelinga AfD. Since your vote, considerable changes have been made to the article and I request that you examine them and alter your vote accordingly, if necessary. Thank you. Silverseren^C 03:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for reverting recent non-constructive edits to Cotati, California. —Stepheng3 (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Just another bout in the forever whack-a-mole game known as Wikipedia! Cheers – Binksternet (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

You reverted all my changes on account of three links to external pics on the basis that there may be copyright infringement. It had been my understanding that, at least in Australia, where these edits were made, it is always permissible to link to a website as long as one doesn't copy it. I could be wrong on this, and am ready o be corrected. In the meantime, just in case, I've removed the links that you object to. Ewawer (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember some past issue against using only the images from an external website, images devoid of original context such as being placed near product information or the name of the lingerie model. When an image is taken out of context, some copyright restriction may be violated without our knowing of its presence. Perhaps the model specified in her contract she would always be credited, or perhaps the maker of the product gave only limited rights to the retailer. I'm not 100% up to date on copyvio issues on Wikipedia, so I acted conservatively as a precaution.

Your new edit appears okay. Binksternet (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wyntoon

The article Wyntoon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wyntoon for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? Harrison49 (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for reviewing the article. I will certainly jump in and review another when I get the chance. I reviewed one right when I submitted this one, so I'm even, in a way. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Non-lethal_weapons You are notitified.

Okay. Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Note to self

• Archaeologists as Activists: Can Archaeologists Change the World?
• Myth, memory, and the making of the American landscape

About early feminists and modern day reinterpretation. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick message

Hi there , just a quick message ; thanks for correcting my edits on this page , and im aware that we had a dispute a couple of weeks back, right or wrong i hope we will be able to turn over a new leaf and work closer together , rather than at each other's throats and help improve Wikipedia; in paticular the history related articles/sections. Goldblooded (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I just want the article to be well composed. Don't read much more than that into my involvement. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As i saw , and as do i; that is why i am thanking you for it.

Well i see your stance on this matter and i hope you prefer that we mutually accept each other, rather than ganging up on me along with your buddies Parsec , Ed and that other guy who joined in on dancing on my defeat in the Dapi case , and among other disputes.

With that , i wish you well but i'd like you to be aware that i may be relatively young for a wikipedian but that doesn't make me the stupid fool you seem to perceive me to be, im far more complex than the average youth. Yet surely isnt that what Wikipedia needs? Also , as ive stated before i suggest that you do not get involved with matters that dont directly affect you, the dispute was over and their was no need for you to pile on. At any rate , good luck and thank you for your contributions to wikipedia and ill stay out of your way if you wish to stay out of mine. Goldblooded (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 14:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What source for the official teaching of the Catholic Church?

I see that you have deleted a quotation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the grounds that it is a primary source for the teaching of the Catholic Church. What is better than a document of the church itself for reliable information about its teaching?

Surely it is better to cite that source than to cite secondary sources that in turn quote the Catechism as more authoritative than themselves on what is official Catholic teaching - such as this, or this, or this. Or you think that the couple of dozen secondary sources cited here are better? They also cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If these statements by bishops can be cited, why not the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is a statement of the central authority of the church? Or do you maintain that, since they are statements by bishops, they too are primary sources and, in your opinion, cannot be cited in Wikipedia for knowledge of the teaching of the Catholic Church? And what do you think of this news report of a statement by the US bishops who in turn cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Do you maintain that a third-hand account (clearly not primary) is acceptable in Wikipedia but not the Catechism itself? Esoglou (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I missed a plus sign in my edit summary—ti should have said "Removing catechism + primary source." The primary source referred to is the Bible: there were two Bible passages quoted with no interpretation.

I removed the catechism bit in the context of there being a link to the main article about Catholicism and abortion. The article Christianity and abortion is a brief summary of each religion's stance, not a detailed exposition. The catechism bit is not even present at the main article about Catholicism and abortion. I think it is undue emphasis for a summary article such as Christianity and abortion or Religion and abortion. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your very prompt response. Someone might quibble that the Bible quotations were not primary sources but simply part of the CCC quotation. I won't. I don't think they add anything useful at that point of the article. But I think the essential CCC statement is quite useful in the context. I have reedited to show how I think it fits in. If you disagree and are displeased at not being able to remove it again immediately, please remove it tomorrow, and I promise not to put it back in, at least for some days. OK? Esoglou (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's better, but I think the first sentence is enough for a summary article. I recommend you put the fuller catechism quote into the larger article. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. I have put the CCC quote into the Catholicism and abortion article, which I had quite overlooked until now. I inserted it only in the short form, without the Biblical quotations. Esoglou (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry man for the advertising. Won't happen again, although I didn't know I was doing it. Once again, sorry. Cya around!

Dooooot (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

NLW Talk Page.

I am requesting you remove your post-13 September comments to get the section back on-track to get it hashed out. (It would help to approach the matter with the idea “Andy might be a crazy a—hole, but I could at least try and hear it out before I say no.”) Remove this section as convenient.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will not help you on Wikipedia. I think the encyclopedia is better off without your input. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Iranian.com

Hello, while I understand the general removal of Iranian.com references which are blogs, I think you need to be a little more discerning regarding what is a reliable source or not. For example, in this edit, you removed a source which was written by the managing editor of Encyclopedia Iranica and a professor at Columbia University who is an expert in his field. In that case, even with the source being part of Iranian.com, it becomes a reliable source because of the nature of the article. For example, even if it was a self-published source, it could be considered reliable because it was produced "by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahmad Ashraf's article at iranian.com is not a peer-reviewed scholarly work. Just because he is a scholar does not make his online article a high quality source. Very often, scholars riff on their expertise in a non-scholarly manner for the popular press, and this is one of those instances. In the article Political accusations against the Baha'i Faith, Ashraf's article was used in Wikipedia's editorial voice, but if the article is used it must be in Ashraf's voice, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

While you are right that just because he is a scholar does not make his online article a high quality source, the reverse is also true: that just because it is an online source doesn't make it by default a non high quality source. Also I disagree with your assessment that this particular article is a case that you note above that scholars riff on their expertise. You are right though that it must be noted through Ashraf's voice, and thus I will restore the citation with his voice attached. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

formal Warnning - Stalking

It appears that you've restarted to stalk me. This is clear violation of your conditional unblock and promise of WP:0RR on Iranian topics. Please cease and desist. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. I always keep administrative noticeboards on my watchlist, and your behavior came up on one. I commented on it there, and followed the complaint to the article in question. No stalking. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You had similar excuses before. "It was on my watch list", where did I hear that before? It didn't work back then, and it's not gonna work now. Your obsession with me is unhealthy, and inappropriate to say the least. Whenever I'm involved in a discussion on a notice board, you just pop up out of nowhere, pretending like you have an interest, and then go on to revert me on the page in question. Just stop stalking me, or I will re-raise the issue with the admins who had blocked and unblocked you under the sole condition that you'd stay away from pages I edit. They told you "no excuses" back then as well. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You're still wrong. Back in January, no administrator required 0RR of me, just 1RR for six months following 13 January 2011. That period is done. Also, I offered to avoid following you around (which was your perception, not mine) but in this case, I responded to an administrative noticeboard listing by Saygi1, including links to the relevant articles. There was no examination of your edit history and no following your edits. Take a look through the noticeboard... I drop in and comment from time to time, as I did again today. The only difference is that you were being discussed, and I looked at your behavior and found fault with it. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you drop a "comment from time to time", like whenever I am there. Cease and desist, I will not take kindly to anymore harassment and stalking. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Huff and puff all you want. I am perfectly able to respond to noticeboard listings. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Meetup on Saturday

m:Meetup/Cambridge/12 if you want to give us another chance. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but I'm back home in the San Francisco Bay Area now. I visited in May and greatly enjoyed seeing the city, but I doubt I will return any time soon. Have a fine meetup! Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Strausszek insulting people again

Not entirely sure how the report feature works, I saw you warning him on his talk page, so I'd like to point your attention to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Amanda_Knox_is_the_notable_one Unigolyn (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Useless link?

Mate I'm not here to start an argument, believe me I've got far better things to be doing, but I thought you calling that link useless on the Hearing Range page was rather harsh. Correct, it is not a professional hearing test, but it clearly demonstrates older people loose the ability to hear high frequencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.215.117 (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The test is useless if the audio gear cannot reproduce the high frequencies of interest. You have no control over the gear that is used by the reader. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Assuming the user is not using laptop speakers, their equipment is likely capable of getting to 20kHz. Anyways, I think we'll agree to disagree on this. See ya, pal... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.215.117 (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The user may have any sort of loudspeaker, and many of the available models cannot reproduce frequencies above 16kHz. Rather than hi-fidelity systems they may have laptop speakers, speakers built into their monitor, or crummy headphones. I've seen some LCD monitor speakers that are aimed away from the viewer! As well, the little amplifiers running these speakers may put out low frequency artifacts or upper harmonic distortion. Poor gear will give the user false results. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Message of apology

Hey there bink , im sorry if ive held some sort of grudge against you over the past months.

But be perfectly honest, if it was the other way round, would you of reported it on my behalf? They have been times before when I was in the right and I didn’t even think about reporting the user in question; simply because there is no point – they were a good editor (and he later admitted he was in the wrong and this was when I was a newbie) so why should I deny him of helping to make Wikipedia a better place?

Without a doubt some of the things you have said to me could be counted as WP:Bullying , paticularly calling me incompedent and stupid. But i think we should move on.

Having said that, it was in some case wrong of me to just storm ahead and adjust and article controversially, I agree I should of posted it on the talk page first but I felt that no one really seems to read it and nothing gets done about it. I still feel it should be in place to keep it a balanced article. But alas, if there’s one thing on Wikipedia that I’ve picked up (which is many things I have learnt on the way) is that in some ways you have to adjust to the game a little and to not be yourself in a way, for example I’m very organised and I like to get things done not to stall, although while this may be a good thing in some aspects in the real world; on Wikipedia it is a one way ticket to a permanent ban.

I do hope you will be able to shake my hand and truly end this, I will also apologise to Ed and Parsecboy , I did have some disputes with them in the past but its time to move on, and for once I am well and truly sorry and indeed I have learnt from my mistakes. I’m going to find a new mentor since my current one (unfortunately) doesn’t edit a great deal anymore. But anyway , thank you for reading at the very least and if you wish to reply please reply here :)Goldblooded (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If you chill out and work as a humble cog in the wheel you will get a lot done on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Good advice , thanks buddy :) I will definately be more patient this time round and i wont rush into things :) Goldblooded (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CityOfSilver 21:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Notice: Conservatism portal

Hello. You have a new message at Portal_talk:Conservatism#Milton_Balkany_DYK's talk page.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Golden ratio

File:2011 10 12 TK and Traquair.jpg

The elliptical background TK and the Island of good vision of Traquair

Dear Justin W Smith and Binksternet, When I introduced in July a comment to "Perceptual studies" in the article "Golden ratio" I was totally new to wikipedia. Now I think I learned something. I wonder if I might state the following:

Harry Moss Traquair (1875-1954) was the pioneer of the study of the visuals fields. In "An Intoduction to clinical perimetry" (1927) defines our vision as "an island of vision surrounded by a sea of blindness." The blind spots are the elliptical boundaries of the "island of vision" in the horizontal plane. The angle from our eyes to the ends of our blind spot is approximately 34 degrees ; this angle is very approximately the same as covering a small side of the golden rectangle from the middle of the opposite side. There is a golden rectangle between the extremes of blind spots and the eyes of the observer of space.
Kim Lloveras i Montserrat also uses it to define what is the horizontal section of the "Cone of Good Vision" in his "Theory TK of Visual Proportions" and in his "Theory TK and Laws of Positioning 2007" .
There have been several publicly "Visual Experiences TK" in order to validate the Cone of Good Vision proposed in the the Theory TK: at the Barcelona School of Architecture (2002 - 2003-3008-2009), at the School of Architecture of Vallés (2008), and at the Eduardo Torroja Institute (2008) of Madrid, belonging to the National Research Council (CSIC).
Arquiteturarevista summarizes what are the experiences TK of the cone of Good Person of the Person.


sincerely

--EspaisNT (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you really write "very approximately the same"? I think this material can be included in its briefest form in a biography of Traquair but not in the golden ratio article. You could be the one to create the Harry Moss Traquair article. However, Traquair's notions are not influential to mainstream thought. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Your status at WikiProject Conservatism

• Ref: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism

Your activities at the project have been contentious, disruptive, divisive and counterproductive and I feel it is in the best interest of the project that you resign your membership effective immediately. A wikiproject is a group of people working together. Your remarks at the MfD, an action which you yourself initiated in order to destroy the project, indicate you harbor hostility, animus and a disdain toward the group of people with which you freely associate. Your unwarranted accusations against the members have been repudiated by Community consensus. Because of these remarks and the bad will they engender, I see no scenario where you will be able to work harmoniously with the members. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I see further than that. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Explanation? NYyankees51 (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for help & suggestions on Paul Shoup House

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.— Wjenning (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"Honorary" knighthoods

I fear you have misunderstood the term. An honorary knighthood is one given to non-British people, such as Andre Previn and Bernard Haitink, who are not entitled to put "Sir" in front of their names, but Sir Ian McKellan and other perfectly regular knights whose "Sir" you have removed are not "honorary". Would you be so kind as to revert your mistaken changes? Tim riley (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will revert my string of mistaken edits. I was under the impression that 'honorary' referred to unlanded persons who were not baronets, etc. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! A lot of work for you, but I'm absolutely sure the wording is right now. Tim riley (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for San Francisco Sentinel

Orlady (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

proposed changes in lead of 1953 Iran coup article

I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of adding a short subsection titled ’Iranian coup supporters’ since the article has no mention on why they opposed Mosaddeq other than being bribed to do so.

Iranian coup supporters

Iranian opponents of Mosaddeq have been described as including "religious leaders and preachers and their followers, as well as landlords and provincial magnates"; "conservative politicians such as prime ministers Ahmad Qavam and General Ali Razmara .... and commanders of the military, most notably General Fazlollah Zahedi ... led by the Shah." They have been described as forces that would "have been crippled without substantial British and later U.S. support," while authors Ali Gheissari, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr say "it would be mistaken to view the coup as entirely a foreign instigation with no support" in Iran.

Observers differ on the opponents motivation for supporting the coup. Mark J. Gasiorowski describes them as "very ambitious and opportunistic." Another author calls Mosaddeq's Iranian opponents elites "determined to retrieve their endangered interests and influence, and unconcerned with the lasting damage to Iranian patriotic sensibilities and democratic aspirations." Money was involved with the US CIA paying out $150,000 after March 1953 to "journalists, editors, preachers, and opinion members", giving Zahedi $135,000 to "win additional friends", and paying members of the majlis $11,000 a week.

Other authors (Ali Gheissari, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr) describe the opponents as agreeing with Mosaddeq that the "British position was unjust and illegal," but believing that after the 1946 attempt by the Soviets to separate Azerbaijan and Kurdistan from Iran, "Iran's interests lay in close ties with the West to ward off the Soviet threat."government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh organized by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This addition looks okay to me, except for the stray text and reference at the end, reading "government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh organized by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States". Trim that off and you have a good addition. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So where is this content?

The content you trimmed from here, where did you add it? I hope that you didn't just delete it...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The content is in the article history, as always. I did not create multiple new articles for divorce practices other countries. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sure your edit was in good faith, but such edits are bad form, very few people check article's history for past content, so in essense, it is deletion without discussion. Please restore this content to an appropriate article. While I agree that the move and renaming was helpful, the content you remove (deleted...) should not have been erased from Wikipedia. At the very least, I suggest that now and in the future you move such content to talk, where it will have somewhat more visibility. Once again, content removed with just an edit summary has a very, very low visibility, and most often then not, is "lost" for us. I hope you understand my concern. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I will move it to talk. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

RFCU recommended

Peru, Chile, and Bolivia removed.

Uruguayan case

The same

Uruguay again, almost removed since this edition

RFCU suggested for El rrienseolava and Edipo yocasta. (Confirmed in spanish Wikipedia.)

Fixertool (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You can initiate the RFCU. What is the outcome you desire? Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This user very often edits a definite range of articles in questionable ways, to say the least. And with both accounts, discussing with rudeness too. But I want to be crystal clear with this: I'm not proposing, and I don't want any application of blocking policy or something like that. It would be incivility on my side and it just makes things worse in this case.

I'm just asking, if you agree, for editions or reversions in the mentioned articles when appropiate.-- Fixertool (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Em dashes and spaces

I reverted your edits at Jet blast deflector wherein you removed leading non-breaking spaces and trailing spaces around em dashes. They are there for a reason. Hyphens and dashes are normally not allowed to wrap to the first column of the following line. If you've ever seen it done in print, it was a typesetter's and proofreader's error. The only way of having a reasonable chance of em dashes and en dashes not wrapping in browsers is to precede them with a   code. If you study the construction of the {{emdash}} and {{endash}} templates, you will find that they work precisely in this manner. Although there are individuals who have edited the Wikipedia MOS to demand no spaces around em dashes and en dashes, their decision to do so was ill-informed and performed in an information vacuum, with no regard to how current browsers handle these characters. — Quicksilver^{T @} 05:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Aim your sights at the Manual of Style, not at the JBD article. I try to follow established Wikipedia guidelines, and WP:DASH has never allowed spaced em dashes any time I've looked at it. I took another look just now and it still does not allow them. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Network Template TFD 2

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_7#Network_templates. A new discussion about the same templates has been restarted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_19#Network_templates_2. Feel free to express your thoughts at the new discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review of Pale Blue Dot

Thanks for reviewing the article. I have responded to your concerns at Talk:Pale Blue Dot/GA3. Awaiting your comments. Suraj T 07:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Tod

Thanks for your work on the GAR for James Tod. I need to get to grips with dashes and hyphens, obviously. You mentioned something about FA in your comments regarding development of the lead. Things need to bed down for a while but there really is not much more information out there about the guy, other than repetitive stuff. Is FA really an option in the future for this one, if the lead can be fixed further? I've never been involved in an FA nom but sooner or later it seems likely to happen for something or another in which I have been one of the major contributors. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned FA because many who submit an article to GA are also thinking about FA. I just assumed!

The quote by Vijay Vaishishtha served a kind of purpose, and now that it is gone there is something of a void. The purpose was to establish Tod's importance right away. I think a bit of wording could be added to the first paragraph to say how Tod was/is important. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the fourth GA article for which I have been the major contributor, and it is one that is impacting on many other articles because of the queries it raises about the reliability of Tod as a source. I've never really thought that any of the four were up to a nomination for FA status, perhaps mainly because I simply lack the confidence and, yes, I am crap at writing leads. It is also why I do not act as a reviewer myself. I might have a chat with some bods about this one being taken further, and I will bear in mind your comment. I am sorry to lose that quote but I do understand the reasons why it is inappropriate. Again, thanks for your input. - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote needed some explanation of who Herodotus was, who Vijay Vaishishtha is, and where Rajasthan is. By itself, the quote was a cipher, raising more questions than it answered, and of course Vaishishtha is a minor voice. However, the quote can still be in the article, down with other analysis, accompanied by explanation.

Give me a shout if you ever take this article to FAC. I'll chime in. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly will shout if that should happen, and I would expect a rigorous critique. As I see it, there is a world of difference between GA and FA. I'll have a chat with others first, as mentioned above, and take a look at some FAC discussions. - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PregnantWoman.jpg

FYI...I noticed you changed a version of the pregnant woman image with the edit summary "Returned normal image left-right orientation, to restore right hand with no ring." That's a bit strange. First of all, this particular image was uploaded as a mirror image derivative, and it was intended for such use. Second, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you want to restore the "right hand with no ring" as if that was important. Women may remove their rings during pregnancy because their hands swell, and it is reported that 13% of women remove their wedding rings in general. Is there a reason we are supposed to think this woman is unmarried? Perhaps it is because she is at a WIC clinic? Well, I know that many low-income families are eligible for WIC and use it, so I don't see how that is relevant. Are you making an assumption that this woman is an unwed mother? To me, that sounds like original research. Viriditas (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with mirror image use of a recognizable human image. Subtle clues about the person are thereby twisted around. The pregnant woman wearing a light blue outfit was flipped left for right, and one of many little falsehoods was that her left hand now had no ring. Originally her right hand was visible, and I restored that. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't address any of my questions. I already know you disagree. Is there a policy or guideline you are using here or are you engaging in original research? Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about this, it occurs to me that the ambiguity was introduced by the photographer, possibly deliberately, in which case you are right to insist we should not deviate from the intent of the artist. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's simple: I don't think it's okay to casually flip a photo of person to switch left for right. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Question: what policy or guideline supports your view, and is it common for editors to mirror right-facing images so that they face the lead section? Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it is common to flip images of people left for right. I've done that with images of diagrams or schematics, for instance a series of images such as this one which I wished to have face into the article from the right-hand border, just like this pregnant woman image from the USDA website. The difference is that there are subtle clues to personhood on a human body which are disregarded and trampled if the image is flipped mirror-image-wise. Wikipedia has no guideline about this. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a guideline about this. It's called MOS:IMAGES. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, you nailed it! There, it says, "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left...[] However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of mere layout preferences." Thanks for the link. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Since this is bound to come up again, and because you've expressed some interesting thoughts on this subject, would you be interested in writing an essay about this? We can then link to it from that part of the guideline. I think it would be very helpful. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at Talk:Pale Blue Dot/GA3.
Message added 03:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suraj T 03:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts in reviewing Pale Blue Dot. Suraj T 09:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome! Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Notified

Remove this as convieent; But you should get on it.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Non-Lethal Weapons". Thank you.
Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Binksternet/Archive15! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Ra One

Excuse me, are you sure you sent the message to the right person? Warring? I don't recall edit warring on Ra. One, but merely adding info, and actually stopping an edit war. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed a number of reversions and I did not want you to get carried away with making more of them. I don't want to see you blocked. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case, then thank you. I reverted three different revisions, one of which was vandalism, the other being a mistake by an editor who acknowledged it, and the third (which was the first revert actually) was to stop an edit war. I thank you for your kind intentions. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

WARNING?

U just accused me of edit waring and put a warning on my talk page...a false accusation that is...May I know why?! --Meryam90 (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A warning is just that. It's like saying 'look out for the edge of the cliff'. I don't want to see people get blocked for edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

But that is the issue...Where is the edit waring? U give a warning when the situation is at its peak...not when there is no situation in the first place --Meryam90 (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an exciting day for Ra.One and there is a swift flurry of editing on the article. I wanted you to keep the 3RR limit in mind. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You're indeed right about that...but if you have noticed, I tried to stay as far away from the article as possible...and it's genarally under control. Thanks for the worry anyway :) --Meryam90 (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Catherine Sandoval

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Cockburn

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You are not the subject of the discussion - this is just an FYI.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet - Cuecat

Binksternet you are reverting updated information that is a matter of public records via USPTO, WIPO and SEC databases. Any edits made to the technology record of Cuecat by me are acccurate and factual and based on existing public, federal and government records. Currently, there seems to be NO LOGICAL reason this particular record is being falsely left as an incomplete record with grossly incorrect data. Please explain your actions and why this is not both harrassment or rethortic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factiod (talk • contribs) 18:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no secondary sources supporting your changes. They appear to me as original research by a person who has a conflict of interest. Relevant guideline and policies: WP:SECONDARY, WP:NOR, WP:COI. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sell books ???

20 billion books are referenced in Wikipedia with similar attributes - should you delete them all. Give it a chance and perhaps others, besides me, will add to PATCO history. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.21.148 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a funny response, an essay called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It says that those notional other 20 billion (!) books are not part of the argument—that this one book is. I wonder what you mean by "give it a chance"... does that mean you want the book and its promo links to stay in the article until somebody else reads them and improves the article? I was under the impression that you yourself were in a position to improve the article. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

So put the mention of the book back and let others at least know of it. I couldn't even get back to the internal link to the author. Stop it. How many books are deleted in Wikipedia based on your allegations of promotional, I resent such suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.21.148 (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

"Let others at least know of it" is promotion. Wikipedia is not here for that purpose. The book is okay; it is a good resource. The author is a fine man, respected and knowledgeable. Why don't you use something from the book to improve the article?

We should move this conversation to the talk page: Talk:Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#McCartin_book. See you there! Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)