User talk:Binksternet/Archive21

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Binksternet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
2. Sasata (submissions)
3. Grapple X (submissions)
4. Casliber (submissions)
5. Muboshgu (submissions)
6. Miyagawa (submissions)
7. Ruby2010 (submissions)
8. Dana Boomer (submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

• The featured article award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for four featured articles in the final round.
• The good article award also goes to Grapple X (submissions), for 19 good articles in the second round.
• The list award goes to Muboshgu (submissions), for three featured lists in the final round.
• The topic award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
• The did you know award goes to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
• The news award goes to ThaddeusB (submissions), for 10 in the news items in round 3.
• The picture award goes to Grandiose (submissions), for two featured pictures in round 2.
• The reviewer award goes to both Ruby2010 (submissions) (14 reviews in round 1) and Grandiose (submissions) (14 reviews in round 3).
• Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to Cwmhiraeth (submissions).

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This 'new' editor seems to have developed an instant dislike towards several of your edits. Do you know who it might be? Ankh.Morpork 18:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Instant dislike? I and another editor reverted his edits because he went to 40 plus articles and deleted sourced information on a false assumption that an admin in an RFC ruling had given him the right to.If you check his contributions then you will see what happened, you could also have followed the discussion about it on various talk pages. I think you should do some more research before trying to blemish my character. Thanks. Kabulbuddha (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork, you may have a point about the new user being a sockpuppet, but you would need to have an idea about which other user was the puppeteer. I don't see a correlation.

Regarding my 40+ edits that he was reverting, I was implementing the result of an RfC which said both "democratically elected" and "appointed" should be used to describe Mosaddegh's rise to prime minister of Iran, or neither of those terms. I saw that many articles which merely mentioned Iran or Mosaddegh in passing were not appropriate to have the both option so I implemented the neither option. I ran into a hailstorm of gunfire on that one. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Kabulbuddha was blocked as a sock. Ankh.Morpork 15:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from inserting original research into Wikipedia articles. By doing so, you're knowingly undermining Wikipedia's integrity as a reliable source by ignoring consensus and clear scholarly clarification on this issue that was recently obtained. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

An overreaction, I think, to a reasonable rephrasing. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. It may interest you to know that I found the book that weird quote that you removed from Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor came from, and it turns out that it is printed as "Seven out of two" in the source. However, that book quotes that text from a masters thesis held at UW Madison that I can't access easily. Unless the original quote can be found, it seems best to leave it out of the article, in my opinion at least. I left a note at the talk page describing the situation. Just thought you might be interested to hear what I found. Good day, Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C)} 01:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's best to leave it out. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume III, No. 2 – November 2012 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Request for Comment: An RFC about the Backlog Elimination Drives has been started this month. Go and voice your opinions! Featured editorial: A Matter of Time: The Future of Backlog Elimination Drives Project News: Over 345 unreviewed articles, 13 at reassessment Good Articles of the Month GA Task Forces: A calmed GA community awaiting for an RFC Member News: 223 members of the GA Wikiproject Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 November 2012

Hello, I'm Nintendude64 and I noticed that you had reverted an edit I made to the War on Women article. I have reverted this edit here: [1]. The reason this edit was made is because there was discussion on the talk page to include reliable sources, and I was also requested by a visiting editor to provide citation before re-adding: [2]. Please refer to the article's talk page, as you've done before, to participate in the discussion. The particular topic is here: Talk:War on Women#RfC_-_Scope_of_Article. Thank you. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 03:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There's more to it than that. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as the opening lede sentence, there isn't anything more to it from what I can see. There is Talk:War on Women#Balance_in_the_Lede but that is unrelated to this particular matter with the lede. If you do see more, please include it. I also think it'd probably be better to continue to discussion this on the article's talk page rather than you talk page. My post to your page was only to explain my actions. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 04:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't ever template me again with such bogus claims of disruptive editing. Go poke elsewhere.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What template? Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for finding the sources to support the content about the Emmy Awards received for Amber Lyon. I had created the Awards section to hopefully be able to add the Emmy Awards once the sources could be located to verify the content. Your work is appreciated! Cindy(talk to me) 20:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks for the fun interaction. Binksternet (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Backatcha! I'm outta here for the day. Have fun! Cindy(talk to me) 21:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain what your problem is? I have thoroughly explained my changes, and you are reverting without giving any reason. If you think "others" is an appropriate word to describe detractors, especially when the sentence before that describes supporters as "reviewers from the left," then I think the article expresses a serious POV issue.

As for the summary of the one critic's opinion, I do not see how a quote about a particular opinion by one person is relevant for the opening header, especially when the actual quote by the critic is contained in the appropriate section. This too seems to raise POV issues.

Please explain before reverting reasoned, good faith changes, as is custom. Thanks 74.96.75.228 (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not just conservative critics who say negative things about the book, it is highly respected historians.

I have recast that particular paragraph, abiding by the guideline at WP:LEAD. I think you will like it better. Binksternet (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Your edit is excellent. Do you think you could come up with a better way to phrase the sentence before that? "Reviewers on the left have called it brilliant, moving, and a great tool for moving forward the cause of social activism through the teaching of history through the prism of class consciousness." The phrase "reviewers on the left" seems inappropriate for similar reasons for your change to the sentence that had succeeded it before your edit. There are certainly many respected historians who both support and detract from the book. The sentence in general also seems to be similarly biased, especially words such as "brilliant" and "moving." Indeed, a better idea might be to just scrap both sentences, and just put in a sentence stating that the book has been polarizing, especially as the critical reception section has a large quantity of quotes giving any perspectives in which a reader might be interested. 74.96.75.228 (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, I thought I should mention, since you felt the need to say something about reverting, that I was not reverting, but actually changing to different phrases each time, to try to find a better solution. You were the one reverting, and I think it is important that we all hold ourselves to the same standards. Thank you, and I appreciate your help 74.96.75.228 (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

On 6 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matrix mixer, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a matrix mixer (example pictured) may be used during a concert to stream a different blend of sound to distant audiences? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Matrix mixer. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Per your revert here, with the edit summary, "Capital letter following a colon in a header", I can't seem to find the justification in the Wikipedia MoS, which says: "The provisions in Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well (for example, headings are in sentence case, not title case)."

According to New Hart's Rules, "The word following a colon is not capitalised in British English (unless it is a proper name of course)." (p.74)

According to the CMOS, "6.61 Lowercase of capital letter after a colon. When a colon is used within a sentence ... the first word following the colon is lowercased." ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I started a thread on the MOS talk page about a capital following a colon in a header. I think headers are a special case. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

After further research, I concede that you were right and I was wrong. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Statυs (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I reckon John R. Brinkley would be a great article for the main page, but obviously it has to be promoted to FA status. I've started a section on Talk:John R. Brinkley#Ready to go through FA Review? for discussion. What do you think?--A bit iffy (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Answered at article talk. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Any more ideas on your comment on the Nye Bevan article? That sock farm is not familiar to me, but newbe editors too familiar with process raises warning signals. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The banned HarveyCarter guy keeps using IPs and socks. He's apparently happiest when putting scandalous tidbits into articles about British politics. He edits under a lot of IPs in various locations in the south-east of the UK, especially ones starting with 92.7, and sometimes ones in London. He quickly reverts if he is reverted. This is a likely interjection of his at the Aneurin Bevan article, and Special:Contributions/RodericMarnn is probably a sock because it made the same edit. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will keep my eyes open! ----Snowded ^TALK 07:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2012 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

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

btw- you are right though, IMO, and i supported you on talkLihaas (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This notice is required due to your name being mentioned in an incident report regarding the Amber Lyon article. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 16:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You gave me a warning I had entered NPOV material into an article.

That is a lie, I deleted NPOV. I did not insert any views, I deleted NPOV and LEAD violations. These were in no way resolved in the Talk section, there was just a standard bully claiming SPLC can be cited basically anywhere in the article.

Your false accusations break a number of Wikipedia rules. --193.90.240.119 (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the beer. We should do it in person someday as I live in San Mateo.

I was looking at the Professional sound production WikiProject page and also making a template file for me to use for new Wiki articles. I started making a list of categories I could use to tag an article. I started with the "Where to find 'Professional sound production' articles" section and added to it. Here is my list: User:Robert.Harker/sandbox. Should I update the section on the WikiProject page with my list?

A second question is should I add more articles to the project? As I read pages, I find that only 1 in 10 of the articles I think relate to professional sound are tagged with the Category:WikiProject Professional sound production articles tag. Should I add this tag when I find an article relating to pro sound? Things like sound engineers, sound companies, manufacturers, technical areas, etc...? Robert.Harker (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please tag the talk pages of articles that you consider falling under the general topic of sound production. That would be very helpful.

Your list of categories to consider is a good one. Consider adding Category:Audio podcasts, Category:Audio plays, Category:Audio software, Category:Audio editors, Category:Audio libraries, Category:Audio enhancement, Category:Audio players, Category:Audio mixing software, and Category:Digital audio workstation software.

San Mateo? Beer places abound, for instance the BJ's brewery chain location, the Steelhead Brewing place nearby in Burlingame, and other spots that simply have beer taps and a kitchen. Too bad Devil's Canyon doesn't have a tasting room or brewpub! Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As you have probably noticed, I have added a lot of articles (300+) to Professional sound production articles. I am not sure, but I may have been to generous with defining things as class C and class Starter. Can you look over a sampling of my additions and see if you agree with their ratings? I have not given anything a class B rating unless another project has. And there are only a hand full of them. I also started out adding importance on existing articles on the high side. Since I started adding new articles, most are Mid importance. I need to go back and do some tuning. Thanks. Robert.Harker (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have already been looking at your contributions and I think they are mostly right on. The ones that I might have a difference of opinion about class or importance are borderline cases where anybody might expect to judge it differently. I'm not going to change anything you put down unless I work on an article such that it merits a new rating. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sure I have dealt with this user before, but when I came to his usertalk this morning it was blank. I wrote a note explaining the Wikipedia view and noting his sole contributions were to add or edit links to websites he directs. Thanks for your level four warning. BusterD (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

From his contribution list it is clear he's been at it for years, a slow-moving edit war involving the same spam links. However, the case is not familiar to me; today is my first encounter. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...

• the subject line "JSTOR"
• your English Wikipedia username
• your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been trying to find an original reference to when RIAA equaliztion was first standardized. All I seem to find are indirect references, mostly to the Wikipedia articles. Can you do a quick search and see if you find anything? I am stumped. Robert.Harker (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought the RIAA was formed in 1952 for the express purpose of implementing the equalization curve standard which is now known by that name. The process of standardization is reported to have been completed in 1953 or 1954, but of course there were holdouts and incomplete implementations. Before that, the NAB in 1949 established a recording standard which was looser, allowing for variation. Competing curves included one from the AES in 1951 and RCA Victor's "New Orthophonic" from August 1952. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Ferrite is to all intents and purposes an insulator. Even at high frequencies it remains an insulator. You misinterpreted the book cite that you supplied for the claim that ferrite somehow has frequency dependent resistive characteristics.

The cite you gave showed a specific example of a particular type of ferrite bead appearing to be a 166 ohm impedance at 450 MHz (with no imaginary component - hence resistive). But the important point is that it is not the ferrite that has mysteriously become resistive. The resistance is exhibited as an apparent 166 ohm resistor in the wire that passes through the ferrite bead, not in the ferrite itself (and it would still be so if the wire was insulated). The resistance is not really there but manifests itself as a result of the magnetic characteristics of the ferrite. Any energy apparently dissipated in this phantom resistor is in reality dissipated as hysteresis loss in the ferrite. It is not an actual resistive loss because there is no resistance anywhere for this to be so. I have therefore had to revert your edit along with the cite which failed verification. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The point is that in the application there is high-frequency resistance. You have removed even that much. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No there isn't. There is no actual resistance as such at high or low frequencies. The resistance that manifests itself is not actually there. Any energy dissipation that appears to be resistive is actually hysteresis losses in the ferrite. Hysteresis loss is nothing to do with resistance - being caused by the heat dissipated as the magnetic domains are turned around with the changing field. The ferrite may exhibit some very large resistance (depending on formulation but it will be in the order of Megohms to Gigaohms) but this will be totally insignificant compared to the hysteresis loss.

In any application where heat is dissipated by some phenomenon other than resistance, the phenomenon will appear to the energy source as resistance (because it can't tell the difference). In large glass dielectric RF power capacitors, there is considerable dielectric loss in the glass (so much, in fact, that the capacitors have to be water cooled). The loss is not caused by resistance in the almost perfectly insulating glass or resistance of the plates. The loss is the friction loses from the vibration of the glass molecules themselves under the RF field (which is what dielectric loss is). These loses appear to the RF source as an equivalent circuit of a resistor connected in parallel with the capacitance. But the resistance isn't really there. There is no resistance and the glass remains as insulating to the RF as it does to DC. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The point continues to be that the equivalent resistance of hysteresis loss or dielectric friction is a useful tool for circuit design. The concept should be explained in the ferrite bead article, not avoided. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Whatever, it needs to underlined that it is an apparent effect and that the 'equivalent circuit' resistance is precisely that and not real resistance with reference to the hystresis loss. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

	The Camouflage Cup
	For fine Roman Research on Ship camouflage - Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This would have been a bit sooner but I'm all fingers and thumbs when it comes to cup-making. Ahem. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Marvelous! Superb award. In accepting, I'd like to thank my agent, my family, all the people in gillie suits... ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Please ask User:Bzuk to join the discussion, he does not allow me to write on his talk page. Thanks! --91.10.13.209 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no need to draw him in if he does not wish it. Binksternet (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither do I, but he drew himself in by making edits with misleading or non-existing comments. Anyway, it's done, thanks! --91.10.13.209 (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet I asked a simple question in a teasing way. I wasn't the only one who made mistakes in the past but I don't see you rubbing their nose in it. It doesn't matter anymore anyway because I stopped editing articles here anyway. Since I'm not trusted and my help isn't needed or wanted I am editing mostly at Simple now. I only comment here in discussions mostly. So now the community has what they want, a mostly Kumioko free Wikipedia. Also for someone who keeps saying I am dramatic you have a funny way of showing your not! Kumioko (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow I thought you were an admin but when I just checked it doesn't show in your rights. You should run for it you would be a shoe in I'm sure. Kumioko (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not an admin because of my old block log, and because I have been very firm in my arguments with a great many people here, probably picking up more opposers than supporters.

Regarding your "teasing" post at RfA: Over and over again you have made comments that compare the RfA process negatively with your present status as a non-admin. You have repeatedly whined about how the process is unfair. I think you have gone beyond "teasing" because of the sheer volume. Me, I think your RfA, as difficult as it must have been for you, was fair. I think your continued comments against RfA are sour grapes; poor form.

You will not get any greater degree of sympathy from me by saying "I'm not trusted and my help isn't needed or wanted". Such "poor me" statements are expected of a child but not an adult. Man, everybody here is a volunteer; nobody should be given special rights because they threaten to leave, or because they throw a tantrum. Despite all the opposition you have encountered you have chosen to continue your volunteer service to Wikipedia. Whatever your reasons, I respect them, and I acknowledge the benefit you bring to the encyclopedia. Just don't expect greater responsibility and community oversight after showing your petulant side. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

First I am 38 so if you really want to ruffle my feathers and get me to say some things that are going to hurt your feelings then telling me I am acting like a child is a pretty good way. It's not my fault that the RFA process is garbage, everyone knows that regardless of the result of my RFA that has been true for a very long time. I also didn't threaten to leave because of my RFA, it had more to do with editors like CBM and his shenanigans and Fram trying to block every high volume editor and acting as the minor edit police. I also decided to stop because I'm tired of having to ignore vandals because I cannot block them, I have to ask for someone else to implement my work on protected templates and then wait a week or more for them to do it, often having to explain it to them. In the end I just decided since I cannot be trusted with the tools, then the work must not be that important. So yes with those thoughts in mind my RFA was a factor, but not the main reason. Your right though in the end I believe in the project, unfortunately I cannot and am not allowed to do more to help. Of course this will probably result in WikiProject US and a lot of the supported projects going inactive and the 10 to 20, 000 edits I did month won't get done but that's the result of truly making an editor feel like they aren't wanted and repeatedly telling them they cannot be trusted because they got pissed off at some editors for violating policy. Kumioko (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Just so we are clear: It's not news to me that you are a grown man in terms of years. Further clarification: I think it is best for Wikipedia that you cannot edit protected templates or block people. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If you really think I would abuse that you are gravelly mistaken. But that is why I don't bother editing anymore. As you have indicated the community doesn't trust me to do administrative things so I should not be doing the work so others can implement. That includes submitting things for deletion, requesting vandals be blocked or requested edits be made to protected templates. The fact of the matter is I am not a novice editor and I have been doing administrative tasks for the last several years. I do agree though that its clear that isn't wanted, that's why I started editing over at Simple where the effort seems to be appreciated. Maybe I'll become an admin over there and maybe I won't but at least I feel like my participation and effort is appreciated and trusted. Which is more than I can say for this place. Kumioko (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking at the editors, I discovered that a number have been SPAs editing this article and related articles only. The IP you reverted(the address changes slightly over time, geolocates to near Los Angeles), Thewatchdog2012, RisaMarie for a few edits (who deleted his real name John Conner), and a few others but they go much further back. It's interesting to see the first version[3] was created with no mention of the name Mark Dice. I think his name was Shouldice, but the only sources I can find are primary so I don't think we can use them, eg [4] and a search for Shouldice at [5]. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This guy is a one-man promotion machine, I think, impeded only by his own quirky decision to change his name.

• This archived webpage is one of the sources supplied with the earliest Mark Dice/John Conner biography. The reporter presents the name John Conner in scare quotes then says "he won't divulge his real name".
• Here's an archived version of the John Conner webpage The Resistance Manifesto. At the bottom is an email link which includes the five-letter series "shoul" and the domain of California State University, San Marcos. Further investigation leads me to think he's Mark Shouldice, a former student of CSUSM, who posted his name and face on www.advancedmemoryconcepts.com back in 2000. Same mug as our guy Mark Dice. More sources including his own self-description link him to a youth spent in Burlington, Wisconsin, where a Mark Shouldice was enrolled in the local high school.
• This 2007 version of the Resistance Manifesto website changes the name from John Conner to Mark Dice. At the bottom it says "Mark Dice (formerly known as John Conner) in the News". Thus the second name change is overt, but not the first decision to use the John Conner pen-name.

What do you think should be done next? Binksternet (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've done some editing, will do a bit more. We can say that the book was originally written under the name John Conner using the last link above and indeed probably your 2nd link. I'd say we can add the Resistance Movement and the Resistance for Christ whose spokesperson was John Conner - we can cite this article but we can't use the link atfreerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1373917/posts and [6]. Agape Press is the old name for the news outlet of the ]]American Family Association. I don't see how we link the Shouldice name yet. The main thing though is to make sure the article isn't just more publicity for him and dealing with the SPAs. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like "John Conner" dropped that pseudonym in February–March 2007. He posted a note on the Jack Blood Forum telling people to start calling him Mark Dice, saying that "Dice is actually a nick name and a shortened version of my last name which people can't seem to pronounce or spell." Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been working with a couple other editors to try to improve the article on Greg LeMond, and one thought we had was to break off the sections on the page regarding doping controversies and make them into their own page. This would keep the article better focused on Greg. Could you point me in the direction as to how one might initiate spawning off the doping section into its own article. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm shutting down the 'puter right now but you can check out Wikipedia:Splitting and see what they say there. I'll be back later! Binksternet (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Binksternet, that was a helpful lead. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. My survey is now in the category. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

¡Hola!, gracias por su respuesta. Gracias porque se tomó la molestia de leer en un idioma ajeno al suyo y contestar. Pues yo me he quedado satisfecho con lo que dijo: "Furthermore, I would like to point out the same problem could have happened with Ray of Light—that various news and magazine writers looked at the 20 million figure on Wikipedia and repeated it without checking". Pero, también me gustaría pedirle un favor, como yo no soy nativo del idioma inglés (lo entiendo, pero escribirlo es lo que me cuesta), que realizara este tipo de censo con álbumes que la verdad, tienen un problema con sus ventas como Ray of Light, Thriller por ejemplo (que son exageradísimas) y lo más seguro es que sea un "Wiki hoax"; recuerde que medios de más de cien años han copiado información de Wikipedia sin ver si son verídicas o falacias, The Irish Times (1859) por ejemplo. Gracias nuevamente por toda la atención. Saludos cordiales , Chrishonduras (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is a huge problem. I would like to see all the album sales figures be assessed the same way all over Wikipedia. Ideally, the assessment would be strict, limited to firmly established sales results. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the RFC ending with a consensus ruling. Mangoe (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

In situations where I beat my head against an unyielding problem for hours, days or weeks without making any progress, I eventually cease my involvement and focus elsewhere. Short of ousting the most vociferous obstructionist editors, I don't have an answer. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've been to ARBCOM with a case much like this before. Mangoe (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That one worked very well. It would be great to see such a result applied everywhere it is needed. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion on this at WP:ORN on user:Arzel edits on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. It can be found here.

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume III, No. 3 – December 2012 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: "Drive-By Reviews": A Retrospective About Reviews During Backlog Drives Project News: A backlog elimination drive is being held now at GAN. Good Articles of the Month: Our picks for November, 150+ promotions. GA Task Forces: Results from the Backlog Elimination RfC Member News: 227 members of WikiProject Good Articles and counting Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 December 2012

Hi Binksternet. I removed "holocaust denier" from the introductory sentence of David Irving, but you (and someone else) seem to have a problem with this.

I thought that the purpose of the introductory sentence was to name them, and to list what occupation they do/did. Is this not correct? All other people seem to have their occupation there, rather than things they're known to be linked to.

I'm new to Wikipedia, so is there perhaps a guide somewhere explaining it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeroy (talk • contribs) 23:43, December 5, 2012

In Wikipedia biographies, there's no cut-and-dried formula restricting the first sentence to career only. Usually the first sentence says the most notable thing about a person. Holocaust denial overshadows everything else Irving has done; it is his main claim to fame whether he likes it or not. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I see, thank you. How do you sign things by the way? I noticed wherever I edit on a talk page, it says "unsigned" whereas everyone else has a signature with date/time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeroy (talk • contribs) 23:58, December 5, 2012

Sign with four tildes in a row, like this: ~~~~

Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

At San Bernardino, if we both acknowledge that Greater Los Angeles Area's presence is debatable, don't you think it does less harm to leave the (possibly redundant) information in the article (where it was put by a third party) than to remove it? I've spent quite a bit of time on more important issues in the article, and it still needs more. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think "Southern California", "Inland Empire", and "55 miles east of downtown L.A." are suitable for the first paragraph. Mentioning L.A. again in the first paragraph is too much.

Of course there are other issues that are more important; this one should be easy to get right. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	I am looking to hire an experienced Wiki writer to help us with managing wiki content on wikipedia for a popular personality form India.They are always creating malicious content on Wiki against him to malign him can you help or guide me? my email is sachinbatra009@yahoo.in Sachinbatra007 (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite cynical enough to take money for the purpose of defending a biography article against published negative accounts. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I wasn't sure if you noticed my warning to Bjkijkjr83 (talk · contribs) when you left your edit-warring warning. If you did notice it, and thought it was still a good idea to be explicit about the policies, I understand, but seeing as he hasn't edited the article since my warning, I thought it would be a good idea to check in with you to see if the reiteration was intentional or not. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Your sudden appearance with in-depth knowledge of WP editing practices is a charade I don't want to play. I think you are a soon-to-be-blocked sockpuppet and I don't care to waste my time communicating. Regarding your concern here, I will do what needs to be done at Bjkijkjr83's page. Nonetheless, please stay off of my talk page. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Francophonie&Androphilie/WHOIS. I've already been blocked, and exhonerated, and a CheckUser's been run. I don't know what I've done to piss you off, but I hope you might WP:assume good faith more in the future. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not as gullible. Stay away from my talk page. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As it happens, this user has a good explanation for his rapid acquisition of some skill in wikipedia. Your opinion is your own, but you have been here long enough to know that accusations of sockpuppetry made without foundation are not approved of. To suggest that checkuser clearance indicates gullibility is IMHO not reasonable.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the various discussions surrounding the block and unblock of Francophonie&Androphilie and I did not see that a checkuser search was run. Or do you mean "checkuser" as in a person who can run the check (Coren) but who in this case has apparently opted against doing so? Anyway, I'm less inclined to doubt F&A after seeing all the positive things he's done, but I'm going to let more time pass before I change my mind completely. Binksternet (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Binksternet. Seeing your above comment, I'm inclined to comply with your request to stay off your talk page. I've said in the past that I understand what could seem suspicious, and if it takes you a bit longer for those suspicions to go away, so be it. Here is the record of the CheckUser being done - not exactly exculpatory, of course, but I believe it's this type of assessment that led to Coren later describing his actions as "paranoid." Anyways, I'm fine with steering clear of you if you'd like, though I hope you don't mind if I reserve the right to drop you any run-of-the-mill messages like the one that started this thread. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that link; it's all I was looking for. If Coren ran checkuser and found nada then I'm happy with the results. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for everything (y por haberme leído pacientemente en español también :),  good work: [7], [8] or [9]; This was indeed a "Wiki hoax", definitely. But, RadioIzzy performs persistent vandalism [10]. Can you handle it?. And... sorry for my bad English. Best regards Chrishonduras (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am watching the page and I will work against edit warriors. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can think of something you'd tie a wagon to that throws fish...[11] :P AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That's my story and I'm stick-in-the-mud, because a stitch in time saves them like nine-pins. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your post regarding the article Tube Fender but I just wanted to clarify with you that Tube Fender is not a product name, but a very large category of products in the Off Road Industry that includes Jeep Owners, Toyota Owners, Custom Built Buggies and other off road vehicles. Google Search for Tube Fender. Matsonian (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Please place your comments at the deletion discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tube fender. I will respond there. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hola, Binksternet. No me quiero meter a problemas, simplemente trato de guardar la imparcialidad. Pero, ¿será correcto esto que realizé?: [12] y [13]. Me gusta Shakira y conozco su biografía casi a la perfección, tanto en las versiones de Wikipedia como fuera de otros lugares y sé que esas ventas no son correctas; además, Sony dice que solo ha vendido 60 millones. Saludos, Chrishonduras (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Chrishonduras, I do not want to help fix the problem of inflated record sales at all of the musician and album articles where there is controversy. My only interest was at Madonna's Ray of Light album, but because of that I was pulled into the List of best-selling albums against my better judgement. I wish you success in your fight for accuracy. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

FWiW FWiW (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC).

Marvelous. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you will be joining us tomorrow afternoon at the Edit-a-thon at Tech Liminal, in Oakland. We'll be working on articles relating to women and democracy (and anything else that interests you). It's sponsored by the California League of Women Voters, Tech Liminal, and me.

If this is the first you are hearing of this event, my apologies for the last-minute notice! I announced it on the San Francisco email list and by a banner on your watchlist, but I neglected to look at the San Francisco invitation list until this evening. If you can't make it this time, I hope to see you at a similar event soon! -Pete (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had heard of the event. Sounds fun! As a freelancer, I work any day of the week that is asked of me. Tomorrow—Saturday—is one of those days. Best wishes to the participants! Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can relate. Hope to see you at another event soon, then! -Pete (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please check the Talk:Richard Nixon page for my response. I believe the proposed changes were misunderstood. If there was no misunderstanding, then please share with me your interpretation of the consensus. Also, please share with me how to proceed forward. This is the first time I have participated in a discussion like this. Thank you for your patience and participation. Mitchumch (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I will comment if and when I get a sense of why there is this kind of discussion on one editor's talk page rather than a noticeboard or larger arena, and how much leverage such a limited discussion will hold on what we do going forward. Binksternet (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm unsure why this thread isn't at the mediation page. Nonetheless, this may well be the last opportunity to speak about the "avoid-dance" during this mediaiton. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• FTR, Brad is going to judge the validity of the criticism of the caveat based on the support, or lack thereof, of an amendment to it based on comments at Strad's talk thread. It now appears to him that only I have an issue with the "avoid-dance", which of course isn't true. I realise most if not all of us are so tired out by this, but really, we are quite close to an end. At least please weigh-in with your thoughts so your voice is heard and Brad cannot insist that I am the only one with an issue with the caveat. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-leaflets/

The article didn't really mention about the warning shortly after the first A-bombing and that i thought it added great value to the article. BTW, this is PBS link so it's legit.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think this source can be used, along with the other sources which are mentioned at Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Edit Request Concerning Leaflets Dropped on Hiroshima. The date in that PBS source is vague, though. When addressing the leaflet question, all the reliable sources must be polled to get as broad an answer as possible, since they are somewhat contradictory. For instance, some revisionist American books (A Patriot's History of the United States, for instance) say that Hiroshima was warned about the atomic bomb by leaflets, but this is contradicted by more detailed/authoritative sources which say the leaflets dropped on Hiroshima before August 6 warned about the firebombing of Japan's cities. No mention was made in them of a new, more powerful bomb; and Hiroshima was not listed among the targeted cities. Binksternet (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well many sources did indicated that the leaflets were dropped on 35 Japanese cities, including Hiroshima & Nagasaki a week before the Atomic bombs was used. Heck even the section of "Choice of targets" the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki even said so as well. The link even said that the leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki. BTW can i add this link and paste the leaflet section to add more value? I know a lot of people who were lazy to look up for links nowadays because of dead links and stuff like that. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/hiroshima4.htm XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There were at least two different leaflets, for different purposes. The ones after Hiroshima warned of more atomic bombs. The ones before Hiroshima warned of the firebombing of cities. Yes, I think you can use the globalsecurity.org link. Binksternet (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: "Larry Schweikart a history professor with a non-controversial record as a business historian in recent years has written interpretive histories of the US with an explicitly conservative viewpoint. Today editor User:Binksternet has been systematically tracking and erasing citations to Schweikart's political books and to his nonpolitical books as well. He stated his motivation on my talkpage as "Certainly Schweikart has his fans, but I think we need to minimize his impact on Wikipedia, at least on topics where his opinion goes against the tide." Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rjensen). For example he deleted a passage on guitar music Rock and roll and the fall of communism that cited Schweikart. He deleted material from Conservation in the United States explaining "Delete overreliance on poorly received work" with zero evidence anywhere that the particular Schweikart works involved were "poorly received" by any RS. Perhaps "against the tide" seems to mean against Binksternet's pov. Ostracizing an established historian because of his political views is pure POV, in my opinions. The NPOV rules require the inclusion of all major viewpoints. "against the tide" seems to mean against Binksternet's pov." Rjensen (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Shouldn't the proper forum be WP:RSN to determine whether this or that Schweikart work is worthy of the facts that it is being used for? Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

the issue is personal attacks on a scholar for books you never read in violation of POV rules. Rjensen (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks? You have the wrong guy. Have I questioned the man's scholarship? Yes, of course, along with many others. I read his book and was astounded at the wrong 'facts' therein. For instance, Schweikart and Allen tell the reader that the city of Hiroshima was warned ahead of time by leaflets that the US was going to "obliterate" the city, but the leaflets that were actually dropped did not list Hiroshima among the target cities nor did they warn of anything greater than the usual firebombings that had been going on for five months. Schweikart and Allen mislead the reader into thinking the Americans gave the Hiroshima citizens fair warning for the atomic bomb, which is not the case. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Schweikart has written dozens of books and scholarly articles published by leading journals -- and has been asked by the editors of other leading journals (American Historical review, J. Southern History, Western Historical Q, etc) to write for them. That establishes a significant reputation as a RS. Binksternet thinks all that is ruined if Schweikart makes a mistake in a general survey book, about say the Japanese language text of a leaflet. Binksternet erases material that has not been challenged by anyone and which he has not read (eg rock music and Panic of 1857 and the diary of Robert Peary (the arctic explorer). What we have is a systematic purge of material that has not been challenged, with no discussion on talk pages and no evidence from Binksternet that there is a problem. That I suggest is a serious editing issue. Rjensen (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm right here; you don't have to address me in the third person as if I was somewhere else, or as if you were grandstanding.

You dismiss one Schweikart work (his most famous one, the bestseller) as a "general survey book", then you turn around and defend the nonsense Schweikart wrote in Seven Events That Made America America, a load of popular pap contained in a chapter called "A Steel Guitar Rocks the Iron Curtain" in which he says that the musical "solo, that essential ingredient of freedom and self-expression", helped break the Iron Curtain. I don't get it! How can you support tripe like that? It's unscholarly pop conjecture churned out for the masses, to turn a buck.

Next, there's the 1986 Schweikart piece called "Polar Revisionism and the Peary Claim" in which he argues that there is no evidence of tampering with Peary's diary, there is a similarity in pemmican crumbs and fat smears among the pages in the diary including the crucial ones that were inserted to fill in the blank days when Peary was supposedly at the North Pole. Schweikart concludes that Peary did get to the North Pole ahead of Cook. And yet, the mainstream consensus did not change because of Schweikart: for instance, in 2003, the textbook Exploring Polar Frontiers: A Historical Encyclopedia continued with the mainstream position that Peary "claimed" to have reached the North Pole, but probably not. This encyclopedia lists a few historians who have argued one way or the other; that Peary was or was not capable of adequate navigation (page 516), and that the icy surfaces he traveled may or may not have allowed adequate traveling speed (a speed that would have been higher than any other explorers), but the encyclopedia does not mention Schweikart's paper. It does say that Peary did not keep an unbroken account in his diary, and that the loose paper announcing his reaching the North Pole "could have been written at any time." This directly contradicts the Schweikart position which is why I took it out of the Peary biography as revisionism. I can imagine putting it back in but with much more context about how the viewpoint of Schweikart is a minor one, how the paper was not a turning point in Peary historiography. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder. And not that I disagree with the reverts, but labeling those edits as vandalism is questionable.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I hear you. At the article, when I saw "Planned Baby Slaughter" the die was cast. From that point on, the editor was a vandal in my eyes. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he's throwing in a meal of trolling with a side of belligerence too. Will request semi or PC if he keeps at it.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=nyk2qegVwHQC&pg=PT153&dq=The+city+itself+was+a+beehive+of+war+industry&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QpnRULyvCMHqiwLw4ID4DA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA

On the article of Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the section of "Hiroshima during WWII" didn't really explain much about industrial but more of a military significance. This makes a lot of readers think Hiroshima only had military camps and not had lot of industrial values at all. So i fond this so if it's OK if i added in. Like for example people were assembling booby traps in the beaches of Japan, suicide craft, and stuff guerrilla warfare. I thought it added great value to the article and also this link is from a real author.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that's a very good book to add to Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The information about Hiroshima's industrial value is helpful to the reader, but don't overstate the case. The center of Hiroshima was mostly a target of about 240,000 humans. Other sources discuss the balance of industry and population. For instance, in the book Japan in the Twenty-First Century: Environment, Economy, And Society ISBN 0813191181, pages 150–151, the authors say Hiroshima in 1945 was a "military city" with around 40% of its central area dedicated to military functions. They say the presence of so many military personnel led to the development of a large number of war industries, that the economy of the city revolved around the military. The American document, U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey: The Effects of the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, says on archive page 10, document page 5, that the large central district of Hiroshima had "no systematic separation of commercial, industrial, and residential zones", and that the headquarters of the huge Chugoku Regional Army was right in the center. The heavy industries were around the outside perimeter of the city, primarily to the south and east. The next page says that "nearly 7 percent of the residential units had been torn down to make firebreaks." On archive page 14, document page 9, it says that there were "several thousand" "small workshops" in central Hiroshima contributing one-fourth of the industrial production. The other three-quarters were in the heavy industries ringing the city, and were largely unaffected by the bomb. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey go to my talk page. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

On 21 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pseudo-documentary, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Orson Welles used a pseudo-documentary sequence in his film Citizen Kane? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pseudo-documentary. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet, you asked me to message you on this page if I had a question, but I see no way to message you. Can you clariy?

As far as the neutrality of the edits to the 2012 presidential election page, the edits were facts only, verifiable from dozens of sources, and are 100% neutral. The page referenced is not neutral, but you could make that argument about many kinds of sources. The page I referenced is the only place on the internet that has the data compiled and organized in a decipherable format.

Beyond that, I think it is a confusion to say that an edit is not neutral because you feel a source of data is not neutral. If the data paints a picture, that is something you have to accept. It has not been altered in any way. What you're saying is a little like arguing that if you ask me someone's height, and I say 4 feet, that characterization is unacceptable because it makes that person seem short and is not neutral. The answer, in that case, is data only, even if your interpretation ends up biased because of your own preconceptions about height. If you would like the last sentence removed to make it seem more neutral, I'm fine with that, but I think your argument about neutrality here is based on how you think users might respond, not any objective definition of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfHenley (talk • contribs)

In this edit you used http://www.whyrepublicanshateeducation.com as the source for your information. This webpage has no author listed, no sense of authority or whether the references are being interpreted correctly. It is a WP:Self-published source akin to a blog post. You can ask at WP:RSN whether anybody over there thinks the webpage is a reliable source but I think it very clearly is not.

Also, your wording was non-neutral. One man is "President Obama" and the other is "Mr. Romney". The word "convincingly" pushes the point too far. "Managed only" is demeaning. The bit about the former Confederate states is inflammatory stuff and should have only the best sourcing such as the New York Times or similar.

The data points are interesting as is the analysis. Various newspapers have made these comparisons. If you source the data to WP:Reliable sources such as these then you'll be in better shape. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers to you! Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I am notifying all participants in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:

• Link to the move to close

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 04:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Good work :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I feel better when I fix things, as compared to when I just complain. ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Fixing things is better than complaining or reverting like a crazy ****. It's nice to discuss with you about all this background and order issue. I hope you don't believe I am trying to impose my way or the highway; I just like to share and compare points of view so that the most reasonable desicion is made. Happy holidays :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

'S'all good. Sharing points of view is worthy. Binksternet (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

Christmas Greetings. Kierzek (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

...And a prosperous New Year to you! Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to do this, but... non-free image removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As I already stated, of which it seemed you ignored an obvious point in my statement, I HAVE QUIT THE BEATLES PROJECT!!! Did I make myself clear now??? Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Right. If you have quit, why don't you just stop posting about the Beatles?

Look, man. Your contribution to the project was good. If you want to quit, though, do it with grace. Don't make a scene; don't make a play for pity. Don't try to use "I'm quitting" as leverage to get your way. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It was GabeMc's heavyhandedness in getting his way which forced me to quit. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As soon as you stop posting about it I will assume you really mean to leave the project. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I have stopped posting in the articles. But this talk page discussion is still active. I am still waiting for your comment regarding GabeMc. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have anything to say about GabeMc's behavior. Nor do I want to encourage any drama regarding your determination to leave the Beatles project. I think it is melodramatic of you to tell people you want to stop being involved with articles about the Beatles, while at the same time you declare your determination to keep writing "The Beatles". When would you write that if you are leaving the project? It's all so silly. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I have quit the project but I will continue to say The Beatles in articles NOT CONNECTED with the project. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has little use for an editor who declares his intention to go against consensus. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Even in projects which allow for use of The Beatles or do you wish to screw up other projects? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Across Wikipedia, editors who willfully go against consensus are eventually banned. You are the one who chooses your future; I'm just pointing out the likely conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You are missing my point. In projects where the consensus IS to use "The Beatles," Are YOU willing to go against consensus in those projects??? Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The mediation/poll established wiki-wide practices for lower case "the Beatles" in running prose. At Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/The_Beatles#Closure, Newyorkbrad said nothing about the decision being restricted to one Wikiproject. There is no project that can go against this determination without putting together a new proposal, one that is almost certain to be shot down. Remember that the poll went almost 2 to 1 against lower case (about 65% to 35%). The lower case people have a supermajority. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

After three attempts to change consensus. Goodbye. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry antipodean Xmas

hope yours is/was fun, and you had a good turkey :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks, I had a very fine Xmas Eve dinner with family. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC) .. Seasons greetings to you and yours Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you! I wish you Likewise. Ho ho ho! Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on things at James Tod during its recent big day. I am finally getting back up to speed and have left some notes here. Your thoughts would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been busy with family events related to Christmas. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Bink, i thought that you're busy over the few days. 67.169.33.252 (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Something I ate put an end to the fun. Recuperating now. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's because Oda Mari told me to put the leaflet section in the Air raid on Japan which I did obey anyways. Sorry i'm sorta of unfamiliar what was going on before i got involved in this. Also, are you still working on the text for Hiroshima industrial value? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent addition was problematic because it gave the reader the impression that Hiroshima was given fair warning by leaflet when it was not. I'll work on the leaflet information today. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok i read it. Sorry but i don't buy it when i search it on Google when leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima, Nagasaki and other 33 Japanese cities even the global Security page i listed out for you earlier on. A lot of readers would be still confused because none of the people had money to buy the actual books. 2nd of all, there is still debated whether leaflets was dropped on Hiroshima, warning about the firebombings. After all, most people will consider Wikipedia an unrealable source with editing conflicts and besides, i suggest we should just completely had the "leaflets" section removed it and figuring out with other users that still believed the leaflets were dropped. And the links you put out were made by Japanese authors on the "leaflet" section, i don't buy their credibility since the nation is still in complete denial of their war crimes today. Are you going to used it as actual facts? Because i suggest you tweak things out or simply just removed the entire section or removed that Hiroshima was not warned about the firebombings. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, then, you and I are at a crossroads. You appear to want the encyclopedia to say that America gave Hiroshima fair warning. I am here to tell the reader what the best sources agree on, and what they do not agree on, which I think I did successfully. The most authoritative conclusion is that America did not give Hiroshima the kind of warning that other cities got for firebombing, let alone the kind of warning that would tell them about a very new and much more dangerous bomb. Nagasaki got that kind of warning, but not Hiroshima. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Still, I'm not satisfied what you wrote here because the text on "Leaflet" section appears to the reader that it would conclude that the warnings were NOT given to Hiroshima at all but the leaflets in the other sources on the internet said it was dropped so it would confused the readers whether it was dropped or not and it would cause many conflicts with debaters in the internet. So are you going to say that the leaflets dropped as proof in the links such as Global Security i provided earlier and others was bunch of lies? I searched up "LeMay Bombing Leaflet" on Google and it even said in August 1st, 1945, many times that the citizens of Hiroshima and 34 other Japanese cities were warned with leaflets dropped (but not the A-bomb warning itself) so i can't call these sources a lie. It's called balance or two point of view for a reason. You can't put everything in one-point of view and not two sides point of view and that what the readers needed. It need some changes so I'm still had a problem with it and i had something in mind to tweak out some sentences in the "Leaflet" section. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to say. The globalsecurity.org source and the cia.gov source are both clear that Hiroshima was not warned about the atomic bomb. Rather, Hiroshima was warned that 12 different cities were to be targeted by standard B-29 firebombing raids. That's what was on the LeMay Bombing Leaflet you refer to! Any interpretation otherwise is a misrepresentation of the sources. The US did not warn Hiroshima about Little Boy. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

OK WHEN DID I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HIROSHIMA AND OTHER 34 JAPANESE CITIES BEING WARNED OF THE A-BOMBS? And here you admit yourself loud and clear that the leaflets were indeed dropped on Hiroshima and other 34 Japanese cities on the 1st of August warned of firebombings based on the sources i left here so it makes this whole "leaflet were never dropped on Hiroshima" moot. Because the whole "leaflet" section is supporting that the leaflets dropped on Hiroshima, warned of firebombings was never dropped at all. Also, for your information, I never go around post the leaflets on Wikipedia that the leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima and other 34 Japanese cities that they were warned of the A-bombs. No one knows the basic knowledge of nuclear bomb (until after Hiroshima & Nagasaki A-bombings) but it WAS a warning after all. But you think i did this to post that it was a warning of the A-bomb. If i do think of that, i never go around post on the articles at all. Any type of bombs(be it firebombs, high-conventional explosive bombs, etc) could kill your instantly within a second falling from 50,000 feet. I suggest either you tweak things in the "leaflet" section or simply reversed the way things were before you make changes. And i want something i could tweak things in mind and i could do it myself if i wanted to because i still had a problem with it. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you and I see the issue very differently. I see that Hiroshima was warned that other cities were going to get bombed. Many people in Hiroshima developed a sense that they were special, that they were not going to be bombed at all. Others in Hiroshima were afraid that some day their seemingly charmed existence would suddenly end in a big way, which it did. The point is that the warnings from the B-29s did not say that Hiroshima was going to be destroyed. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Even some sources say that Nagasaki and Kokura wasn't warned of being destroyed either but yet it did. You can't put it on one-side point of view and say, "fine i just put it in my point of view to see that the USAAF never dropped leaflets of Hiroshima warned of firebombings based on some resources i say as it was an actual fact." So we're going to have the balance instead of putting it in a one-side of view which the current "Leaflet" section does. The "leaflet" section on the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still indicates to the readers that the leaflets warning Hiroshima of firebombings were not dropped at all which is pretty one-sided. Yet when the readers researched on the internet, it says it does as indicated in the "LeyMay bombing leaflet" says it did as the CIA and Global security sources said which was dropped on August the 1st. Now here is the thing that really bothered me that ruined the two-point balance POV. "One such leaflet is on display at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum; it lists 12 cities targeted for firebombing: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabari, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima was not listed." and this one as well, "but the USAAF history notes 11 cities targeted with leaflets on that date, none being Hiroshima" yet the date said it was July 27 before that sentence was made. Yet the "LeyMay bombing" leaflets showed it was August 1st with 33 Japanese cities and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were dropped. In order to have a balance point of view, i suggest that two sentences needed to be removed because you can't automatically come to the conclusion that the leaflets were NOT dropped on Hiroshima that city would be destroyed by firebombings, even based on some few resources. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm done debating here. I think you misunderstand the sources. Take your complaints to the article talk page and see if you get more traction there. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No i don't misunderstand the sources, it's because something doesn't always add up. Well since you're done debating with me, would you like me to add and tweak some changes in the "Leaflet" section? I feel they are some things i wanted to tweak about a big since it's almost one-sided. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page, and note the requirement in WP:NPOV that we cover all significant view points, and not attempt to use Wikipedia articles to come down on one side or another of a debate. Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey. Hope you had an enjoyable Christmas. I'm posting this with regards to an edit I made to Augusto Pinochet's page; I changed the sentence "tortured 30,000 people, including women and children" to remove the 'women and', which you felt was not neutral. It may be so, though I'd like to explain myself; I feel in fact that writing 'including women' is in and of itself especially not neutral, as it implies that the same crime committed against a man, when committed against a woman, is somehow inherently worse. There's good reason to think that torturing children is much worse than torturing adults, of course, but to imply a crime against a woman is inherently worse, or even worth specifically differentiating from a crime against a man-- I feel that's the less than neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.112.138 (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The books about the topic emphasize that women were tortured. Several tortured women have spoken about their experiences. Because of this emphasis, I think it is valid to tell the reader that women and children were also tortured. I think it is a matter of tilting at windmills to try and prove a point about torture not being worse for either gender, especially in an article about Pinochet. Whatever books discuss gender differences or similarities in torture should be taken to the Torture page, not the Pinochet page which follows the general practice of the books about Pinochet. The mainstream global opinion is that it is worse to hurt women. It makes Pinochet have a worse reputation. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

[14]. See for instance [15] and [16] where he readded some slightly tweaked material from earlier socks. SPI coming up. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy but I may need help with more diffs. Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

CU confirmed, no sleepers. Thanks for your deletion of the Mortenson stuff, I thought I'd searched for him before. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

He'll be back. I should have a regular alarm set, like once a month, to remind me to search for Terrance/Terry Mortenson insertions. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent revert at SPLC was not reverting vandalism. POV yes, but not even close to vandalism. Please use the AGF TW instead next time.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you really want to go to bat for this POV warrior? Have fun with that. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I care not for his edits. But I am asking you nicely as possible to please adhere to policy when reverting such POV edits.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The editor did not have my good faith, so it would be hypocritical of me to revert him while claiming that I did it in good faith. That editor is a POV warrior who is not wanted on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Then use a custom summary, but please stop using the vandalism summary unless it is clearly vandalism as described in WP:VANDAL.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't waste too much time arguing with "Little green rosetta". He showed up out of nowhere in August 2012 fully formed as a "new account" and went straight to ANI, AfD, and all the other places that newbies never, ever go. At first I thought it was playing the good hand, bad hand game, and at times I've been reminded of other editors, now gone. But the truth will out itself in time. As of now, the "Little green rosetta" account is tag teaming for Belchfire and a blocked sock puppet. We'll see how long they can keep this up before one of them slips up. It's only a matter of time before the veneer of civility and neutrality slips again. At first, some of the lawyer-ly language used by LGR sounded exactly like the now "disappeared" Lionelt, recalled by his handlers for losing the election, apparently. Basically, the usual threats from Lionelt matched up with the consistent threats from LGR, but now, I'm not too sure. In any event, I'm watching him very carefully. Recent tag teaming reverts between the now blocked Zaalbar, followed by Belchfire and Little green rosetta in tow are highly reminiscent of the WikiProject Conservatism tag teaming from 2012. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

LGR is somebody's sock, but I don't know who. I've been trying to figure it out for months. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the process of comparing comments, but a specific threat from Lionelt earlier in the year sounded exactly like a more recent similar threat from Little green rosetta on my talk page. Granted, their appearance comes off as totally different, but Lionelt had a habit of slipping up out of his persona. At one point, he didn't know if he was coming or going, and claimed to be a Jewish Catholic Episcopalian Homosexual Heterosexual African American Democrat Republican, and no, I'm not making that up. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Please investigate. The more time you spend on this is less time spent on damning the encyclopedia.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Translation: time spent cleaning up after your mess, LGR. Where's your learning curve, LGR? That's right, there isn't one, because you've always been here under another account name. Let's hope, for your sake, you aren't using more than one at the same time. BTW, your dramatic "defense" of StillStanding when you created this account was a nice touch. That's a great "good hand, bad hand" strategy. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Since I'm not allowed on your talk page, I won't continue to respond here and in the process bother Binksternet responding to you. Go play Inspector Clouseau all you want. The joke is on you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to take this opportunity to correct your recent misstatements about policy. On User_talk:Belchfire#Zaalbar you said, "Reverting all edits done by a sock is not within policy."[17] Actually, it is. According to Wikipedia:Banning policy, content created by editors during a block or ban or by someone acting on their behalf (read you Little green rosetta) may be reverted without question. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• False. As LGR and I have both pointed out: "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." See Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits Belchfire-TALK 04:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing "false" about the fact that edits by sock puppets (and users like yourself and LGR editing on behalf of such sock puppets) may be reverted without question. That's policy. In this particular instance, no core policies were violated by reverting the sock puppet edits, so your cry of "false" rings hollow as usual. Basically, you and LGR are POV-pushing as usual and tag team reverting under the cover of throwaway sock puppets who help you disrupt the talk pages and maximize edit warring/3RR violations. Truth hurts? Accept it. Your little "team" has been on an anti-LGBT crusade for Christ for some time now, and it will end. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This is not the proper place to discuss this, but I wanted to let you know that I understand your objection, so I changed the word "anthem" for song.--Lapwingold (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you misunderstand my objection. I object because the song/anthem is not shown to be connected to or important to Lehi. There should be a third party source saying that Lehi has an official song or anthem. I do not see such a source. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

On 31 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United States, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Kaiser Wilhelm II (pictured) ordered plans drawn up for Germany to invade two US cities: Boston and New York? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United States. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Just wanted to recognize your fine work this morning at Lynette Nusbacher. That was a very impressive source find. ► Belchfire-TALK 18:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. We don't often agree on an issue; this was rare. Savor it! Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet, could you please consider the point at the bottom of the BLPN discussion on Nusbacher? Thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Considered. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Binksternet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.