User talk:Binksternet/Archive31

IP adding "(all)" to air crash reports

They're quite busy. I hope this isn't going to be an ongoing thing... Pinkbeast (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Input

If you've got the chance, some commentary here (by July 11th if possible) would be much appreciated. Given your work in bringing articles to FA, figured you'd have good insight/advice. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 18:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty tough on FA reviews! But if you want me to come look at it, I will. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that while looking at Madonna's 2010 FAC :P. In the words of Pat Benatar, Hit Me with Your Best Shot. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a necessity, but would appreciate your 2¢. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've responded to all your suggestions, and have a question on one of them. If you've got further comments, please do give them. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

5 Seconds of Summer

Hi Binksternet. In regards to removing my edit from the 5 Seconds of Summer page, I understand what you are saying about neutrality, but Wikipedia also strives for accuracy, does it not? It is inaccurate to call them a "boy band" because by definition, a boy band is a group who sing while at the same time performing choreographed dancing (for example One Direction, Backstreet Boys). This is not an accurate description of 5 Seconds of Summer. Each member plays his own instrument on stage, and they do not dance. For each reference that can be found calling them a boy band, references can be found to say they are not a boy band :) Sharkywoo (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Your definition of "boy band" is too narrow; there are exceptions. You must admit that 5SOS has been called a boy band in the media, despite any preference stated by the band itself. If you would like to write a section in the article about how the "boy band" label has been applied by some and denied by others, then feel free to do so. Just don't remove references, which is why I sent you the note. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

SPI question

SPI isn't my forte, so can you help me out. I see a CSD on Chinatowns in the Southern United States, starting it is a banned or blocked user. The article was created by User:Djdjjtd, but I do not see that name in {{:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of D62943]]. So how did you conclude it is the same editor?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The sockpuppet case has recently concluded, which is probably why the category you looked at was not populated yet. Take a gander at the huge list of socks recently found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D62943. I have a shipload of articles I have been nominating for deletion for the same reason, that a banned user created them, all based on the recent SPI. To be specific, User:Djdjjtd created the article about Chinatowns in the Southern U.S., and this account is one of the many listed at the above-linked SPI. Good hunting! Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw the huge pile of CSDs, but wanted to be sure before deleting.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Régie Malagache

As noted by the previous edit to this page that you reverted, by performing a cut-and-paste page move of this article you are claiming that it is your own work, which it blatantly is not. This is a violation of the CC-BY-SA license under which Wikipedia operates, as well as unethical. Work is REQUIRED to be attributed to it's creator by entries in the page history log.

It is also inappropriate for the person who entered material into Wikipedia (in this case, you) to remove a copyright violation notice. It is REQUIRED that allegations of copyright violation are investigated by OTRS.

You are also edit warring in an attempt to remove the copyright violation notice, and are at this point way past 3RR. Stop. Revent^talk 04:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting you! I was busy denying the sockpuppet of banned user Russavia. The same banned user was the one who placed the copyvio tag, so removing his tag is allowed without any discussion—he's banned. Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, could you possibly tell us if you are the author of the work in its entirety? 183.62.37.35 (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware that Russavia is banned. I'm also well aware that you were assuming that the person who posted the copyvio notice was Russavia prior to any 'proof' that he was a banned user. You are not entitled to editwar simply because you 'think' the other person is a sock of a banned user, and you are NOT allowed to take down a copyviolation notice. You are not the only person in the world capable of reverting an edit, 3RR exists for a reason, and you had reported it to ANI. The world was not going to end if the copyvio notice sat on the page for ten minutes until an admin looked at the issue. I'm not upset that you reverted me, but the simple fact that you were hitting the revert button so fast that you did so shows that you were not thinking through your actions. Revent^talk 07:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I was operating under the exception listed at Wikipedia:Reverting#Exceptions which allows any number of reverts of a banned editor, outside of the limits of 3RR. You're right, I was so deep in the conflict that I was not thinking as clearly as usual, but I did take time to post to SPI and ANI to try and get the sock under control. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Revent, I had never seen the guideline WP:RUD until it was pointed out to me by Stefan2 at Talk:Régie_Malagache a few hours ago. I wish I had completely rewritten the article in my own words so that there was no question of copyvio. It would have taken me only a few minutes longer. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Annoyed: Centennial District, Philadelphia and so on

Hi Binksternet.

I'm annoyed that good encyclopedia articles like Centennial District, Philadelphia, Arch Street (Philadelphia) and so on will be deleted under WP:G5. I think they should be kept. I really do not like WP:G5 tags for worthwhile articles that would otherwise be uncontentious.

Whew. I feel much better now, having got that off my chest.

That's all. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the G5 deletion is going to make someone else have to write the article anew. I'm sorry that you are annoyed about the whole deal. More than that, I'm sorry that a fairly useful editor has also been so disruptive that he was banned. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: US Census edits on [City of] San Jose, California Wiki page

Do you think it is your personal responsibility to police other Wikipedia editors? The U.S. Census issues annual population estimate updates and updates for certain other data/criteria. They only do a full Census every decade. Regardless, the changes I made are correct and you should have researched the data itself before reverting my edit. The previous CSA population estimate of 8,371,000 was the 2012 Census estimate data. That CSA population was not referenced either, because a link to the Census page cannot be cited, because of their script based "Factfinder" search tool/database. The current U.S. Census estimate of 8,469,854 is the 2013 (current) Census update for the SJ/SF/OAK CSA. The information is correct and you can check these Wikipedia pages to see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_combined_statistical_areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose-San_Francisco-Oakland,_CA_Combined_Statistical_Area I did not create or edit either of these pages. You can also use the U.S. Census Factfinder tool yourself to verify current population estimates. Furthermore, I don't appreciate your condescending attitude in the comments you left on my talk page and therefore I have deleted them. You should know by now that there are a lot of morons on Wikipedia. Everyone who "corrected" me in the past was wrong, -as were you. There is extensive discussion (and consensus) about the issues they "corrected" me on, in Wikipedia editor forums (many of those who agreed with me were Wikipedia Administrators). I suggest you read (on my talk page), my response to some of these people. I can't reprimand everyone on Wikipedia that made an error, or did something wrong. I will simply make an edit or correction and move on. I have been at this for years, and am no fool. If I wasn't so busy, I would devote more time to it. I work full time though (on average 60 hours a week). I hold a masters degree in engineering and have worked as both a software engineer and systems administrator for more than 20 years in Silicon Valley. I'm 46 years old and not some punk kid. Jcheckler (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to piss you off; I never thought you were a child. You will admit that this edit of yours carried the summary "Updated CSA information to current 2014 U.S. Census Data" which was not true. The San Jose city article's population estimates are based on updates from the California Department of Finance rather than on the US Census. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If one were trying to update the CSA page using the estimates from the California Department of Finance, from data on the page linked above, the following is what they would calculate:

			
	County	        Total Population	
		        1/1/2013	1/1/2014
			
1	Alameda	        1,550,119	1,573,254
2	Contra Costa	1,076,429	1,087,008
3	Marin	          254,696	  255,846
4	Napa	          138,754	  139,255
5	San Benito	   57,079	   57,517
6	San Francisco	  826,003	  836,620
7	San Joaquin	  701,745	  710,731
8	San Mateo	  736,647	  745,193
9	Santa Clara	1,840,895	1,868,558
10	Santa Cruz	  268,189	  271,595
11	Solano	          420,339	  424,233
12	Sonoma	          488,580	  490,486
			
	Total CSA	8,359,475	8,460,296

That gives different results than what is currently shown. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

---

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

You clearly didn't read my explanation. The U.S. Census Bureau is a permanent agency of the U.S. government. They have permanent (daily) full-time employees. They update estimates for a lot of the same data they accumulate in the decennial census, on an annual basis, and release that information to the public. It is also (obviously) updated in their database (American Factfinder tool). They work with the OMB also, to provide data to them for budget purposes (among other reasons). The current listed CSA population of "8,469,854", comes directly from the U.S. Census Bureau, not the CADOF. Only the city population (I believe) comes from the CADOF.

I didn't update or change any other information in the San Jose article except for the CSA. I don't care about the CA Dept of Finance, with the exception that in editor/administrator discussions in the past, the consensus was that it was a legitimate source to use for updating current population information (since city/town populations are one of the data that the Census Bureau only updates every full census (decade). The only data in that article (I'm aware of) which uses the CA Dept. of Finance estimates, is the City population.

If you look at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USCITIES Guideline, you will see this: "City proper population (US Census figures should be used. When appropriate, "other reliable estimates" may be included as a supplement to Census figures.)" -[because of the fact that populations can change enormously from one decade to the next]. In my discussions in the forums (and on talk pages), there has been a consensus that the only "other reliable estimates", would/could be from the state agencies who are responsible for compiling [their own] state data/estimates. In the state of California, that agency is the California Department of Finance. Certain individuals would argue that CADOF estimates are not legitimate. I will not debate or argue that point here except to say, -Prove It. The DOF uses Census data, BOE tax records, and all kinds of other demographic data, to compile their estimates. Also, it could be noted that, the Bay Area is the fastest growing region in California per capita, and Santa Clara County is the fastest growing county in the state (for the last several years.) https://www.google.com/#q=Santa+Clara+County+fastest+growing+county+california&safe=off

I want to point out that I was not intending to be harsh in my response to you. I'm just sick of people who feel the need to "correct" others, without doing their own due diligence beforehand. That is where I was coming from. I have no desire to be contentious. To the contrary, I want to work with others to make WP better. Wikipedia is one of the greatest tools ever created. I have made thousands of contributions to it (no matter how large or small), and I donate money every time they have a funding drive. I have gleaned so much knowledge from WP that I felt compelled to contribute. I think that's why we all do it. Anyway, have a happy Thursday. -John Jcheckler (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Banned User:D62943

Hello Binksternet. The content of articles you nominated for deletion under {{db-banned}} seems to be non-problematic, enriching Wikipedia. Why to destroy the articles? Yesterday, I noticed many articles on US Chinatowns. I guess they are gone. Is it a revenge to D62943? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly a tension between the G5 deletion policy which is not at all lenient, and the wish to improve and expand the encyclopedia. Most of the time I am sympathetic to the expansion of the encyclopedia but this time I started checking into the disruption caused by this blocked editor, and I determined that a line had to be drawn, that the blocked editor had to stop socking. Ideally, the guy will follow the advice of WP:OFFER and eventually return to Wikipedia as a legitimate contributor.

In the interim, the various Chinatown articles, and a bunch of other articles he created, have been deleted. None of them were very complicated or complete, so it will not be difficult to replace them. The encyclopedia will survive. Binksternet (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll trust your instincts in this case. I've learned to judge content nad originators separately, in most cases, so that's why I asked. Thanks for your response. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Backside of Beachgoer – a strange little wiki tale

Starting on 6 January 2011, an IP editor posted 14 photos over 23 hours, the photos showing somebody standing at a California beach, facing away from the camera. The only image that survived deletion was one taken on the Palos Verdes Hills with a Canon EOS 40D camera on 26 December 2009, with a little bit of post-processing done on 5 January 2011 as shown on the EXIF data.

On 15 January 2011, four of the same kinds of photos were posted by a different IP. None of these survived deletion. This session was the first I became aware of what I will call the "Backside of Beachgoer" photos. A few hours after one of the photos was posted to Pebble Beach, California, (which was on my watchlist), I reverted the image, saying "rv photo of unknown person".

• Added on 26 June 2014 by Andeverywhereand. Photo taken on 3 January 2010.
  Added on 26 June 2014 by Andeverywhereand. Photo taken on 3 January 2010.
• Added on 26 June 2014 by Andeverywhereand. Photo taken on 2 January 2010.
  Added on 26 June 2014 by Andeverywhereand. Photo taken on 2 January 2010.

Fast forward to 26 June 2014. A new user account, Andeverywhereand, uploaded two of the same sorts of photos into Commons and added them to Wikipedia. One of them was added to the Pebble Beach article, which was still on my watchlist, so I reverted it again, saying "rv... no need for anonymous person posing in beach photos". The photo was also taken with a Canon EOS 40D, and it was also post-processed in early January 2011, but the original snapshot was listed as 3 January 2010, so this was probably the same seacoast road trip by the camera owner. I also reverted the other photo placed at the same session.

• Added on 1 July 2014 by Andforevery. Photo taken on 3 January 2010.
  Added on 1 July 2014 by Andforevery. Photo taken on 3 January 2010.
• Added on 1 July 2014 by Andforevery. Photo taken on 10 January 2010.
  Added on 1 July 2014 by Andforevery. Photo taken on 10 January 2010.

A few days later the account Andforevery uploaded two of the same kinds of photos to Commons and added them to Wikipedia. The Backside-of-Beachgoer guy was shown in Pebble Beach again, and in Crescent City, California; the camera was a Canon EOS 40D. These two were taken in January 2010 and slightly post-processed in January 2011. By now I'm getting a little annoyed; my edit summary was "delete attempt at spamming the backside of some person looking out over the ocean... at multiple beach articles".

• Added on 2 July 2014 by Andthethethe. Photo taken on 6 January 2010.
  Added on 2 July 2014 by Andthethethe. Photo taken on 6 January 2010.
• Added on 2 July 2014 by Andthethethe. Photo taken on 6 January 2010.
  Added on 2 July 2014 by Andthethethe. Photo taken on 6 January 2010.

One day later, the account Andthethethe added two similar photos, which I removed with edit summaries about the spamming of photos. It's all the same series, same camera, same dates.

Caspar David Friedrich often included the backside of a person in his paintings.

This persistent effort which has been carried forward for years always shows some kind of desolate beach scene, with a lone figure. The composition appears to be modeled after the work of Caspar David Friedrich who placed in his paintings figures facing away from the viewer. Friedrich's idea was that it would make the viewer sympathize with the figure and the work, as if they were all part of the work. All I can say about Backside of Beachgoer is that it's not working for me. Binksternet (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not notice until just now that more accounts and photos were involved.

• This photo was taken on a different camera and uploaded by Rainingreenpoint.
  This photo was taken on a different camera and uploaded by Rainingreenpoint.
• Added on 12 June 2014 by Rainingreenpoint. Photo taken on 27 December 2009.
  Added on 12 June 2014 by Rainingreenpoint. Photo taken on 27 December 2009.

The account Rainingreenpoint added two photos on 22 June 2012, but one of these was taken by a different camera—a Canon PowerShot G10—and it was shot on 7 January 2011, a day after the first uploading session.

• Added on 31 May 2014 by Forcaliforniaforcalifornia. Photo taken on 6 January 2010.
  Added on 31 May 2014 by Forcaliforniaforcalifornia. Photo taken on 6 January 2010.

The account Forcaliforniaforcalifornia added only one photo from the same series.

• Added on 12 June 2014 by Inintoinininto. Photo taken on 7 January 2010.
  Added on 12 June 2014 by Inintoinininto. Photo taken on 7 January 2010.
• Added on 12 June 2014 by Inintoinininto. Photo taken on 2 January 2010.
  Added on 12 June 2014 by Inintoinininto. Photo taken on 2 January 2010.

Inintoinininto added two of the same photo series on 12 June 2014, and he also added the surviving photo by Sfcamerawork to an article, the file that was uploaded way back in January 2011.

• Added on 17 June 2014 by Somewhereoutsideoftime. Photo taken on 7 January 2010.
  Added on 17 June 2014 by Somewhereoutsideoftime. Photo taken on 7 January 2010.
• Added on 17 June 2014 by Somewhereoutsideoftime. Photo taken on 26 December 2009.
  Added on 17 June 2014 by Somewhereoutsideoftime. Photo taken on 26 December 2009.

Somewhereoutsideoftime added two of the same photo series on 17 June 2014.

• Added on 22 June 2014 by Thunderstormsandlightningflashes. Photo taken on 2 January 2010.
  Added on 22 June 2014 by Thunderstormsandlightningflashes. Photo taken on 2 January 2010.
• Added on 22 June 2014 by Thunderstormsandlightningflashes. Photo taken on 3 January 2010.
  Added on 22 June 2014 by Thunderstormsandlightningflashes. Photo taken on 3 January 2010.
• Added on 22 June 2014 by Thunderstormsandlightningflashes. Photo taken on 3 January 2010.
  Added on 22 June 2014 by Thunderstormsandlightningflashes. Photo taken on 3 January 2010.

The account Thunderstormsandlightningflashes had uploaded three more images to Commons on 22 June 2014, and added them to four Wikipedia articles.

There are probably a few more out there. Binksternet (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there's more.

• Added on 15 May 2012 by Okinawanusername. Photo taken on 27 December 2009.
  Added on 15 May 2012 by Okinawanusername. Photo taken on 27 December 2009.
• Added on 15 May 2012 by Okinawanusername. Photo taken on 8 January 2010.
  Added on 15 May 2012 by Okinawanusername. Photo taken on 8 January 2010.
• Added on 15 May 2012 by Okinawanusername. Photo taken on 26 December 2009.
  Added on 15 May 2012 by Okinawanusername. Photo taken on 26 December 2009.

Okinawanusername uploaded three photos, all from the same December 2009 – January 2010 roadtrip as above.

• Added on 19 June 2012 by Demiannaimed. Photo taken on 27 December 2009.
  Added on 19 June 2012 by Demiannaimed. Photo taken on 27 December 2009.
• Added on 19 June 2012 by Demiannaimed. Photo taken on 7 January 2010.
  Added on 19 June 2012 by Demiannaimed. Photo taken on 7 January 2010.
• Added on 19 June 2012 by Demiannaimed. Photo taken on 7 January 2010.
  Added on 19 June 2012 by Demiannaimed. Photo taken on 7 January 2010.

Demiannaimed uploaded three photos, all from the same December 2009 – January 2010 roadtrip as above. That makes for two Stinson photos.

• Added on 20 June 2014 by Andthethe. Photo taken on 3 January 2011 with a Canon PowerShot G10 camera.
  Added on 20 June 2014 by Andthethe. Photo taken on 3 January 2011 with a Canon PowerShot G10 camera.
• Added on 20 June 2014 by Andthethe. Photo taken on 2 January 2010, with a Canon EOS 40D camera. This is part of the first roadtrip series.
  Added on 20 June 2014 by Andthethe. Photo taken on 2 January 2010, with a Canon EOS 40D camera. This is part of the first roadtrip series.
• Added on 20 June 2014 by Andthethe. Photo taken on 3 January 2010.
  Added on 20 June 2014 by Andthethe. Photo taken on 3 January 2010.

Andthethe uploaded three photos, one with a different camera.

• Added on 24 June 2014 by Andthespace. Photo taken on 3 January 2010.
  Added on 24 June 2014 by Andthespace. Photo taken on 3 January 2010.
• Added on 24 June 2014 by Andthespace. Photo taken on 19 April 2013, with a Canon PowerShot G15 camera. This is in Howth, not California.
  Added on 24 June 2014 by Andthespace. Photo taken on 19 April 2013, with a Canon PowerShot G15 camera. This is in Howth, not California.

Andthespace uploaded two photos, one completely outside the California series, taken in Howth, Ireland, with a different camera.

Pinging Tillman, McGhiever, Stepheng3, Invertzoo, Ellin Beltz, Asiaticus, WPPilot, Killiondude, Look2See1, WCCasey and LFaraone who have all worked on various California images and beach articles. I removed some of this person's photos but not the majority of them. I will leave it up to the community to decide what is to be done, if anything, about the remainder of the Backside of Beachgoer series. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I as well in the past have ran across this, and never really thought anything of it. Backside of Beachgoer showed up on the 17 mile drive pages a while ago and I replaced it with one from my personal collection but never really thought anything of it. Good eye, and it seems like some kind of game if you if you will to see how many of these profile shots can be included here, its someone's idea of joke, but not in any way productive. Perhaps you have links to other wikis that the users pops up on and lets maintain that list. In most of them, IMHO it is the same user, the stance, the outfit, the long rambling user names, I bet it is just some college kid with nothing better to do Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Starting at the bottom, I have removed a few, replacing them with files from the commons, and in at least 1 case I cropped out the rear side of the person and uploaded it to the replace the users pic. These are all over the place to, as many of them are laced upon a number of pages. Cropping and re uploading is really the quickest way to deal with this IMHO. Too bad as some of the pics would be nice if the persons rear side was not in them. talk→ WPPilot  19:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. I have not come across any of these myself. However, I have only recently been working on, and adding images to, articles on California beaches. I agree that this seems to be a game, or perhaps someone's (or some people's) little "art project". Either way I think it is inappropriate to do this in an encyclopedia. I suppose one person might innocently upload one image of a beach with someone's back in it, thinking that the picture looked great, atmospheric, and not understanding that this is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. When one user uploads several with the same format, I would say it is either a major misunderstanding or a deliberate ploy of some sort. Have you been able to contact any of the users who have been doing this? I am willing to try to talk to anyone who needs a little chat about this. Invertzoo (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I have not tried to contact this person, because the accounts are used for just a day or two. I agree it would be helpful to have a conversation. This photo series appears to be someone's conceptual art project. Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. As soon as I feel a bit better (I injured myself today) I will see about leaving a friendly but firm note on these user's pages, just so they/he/she knows that we are aware of this. Well done Binksternet for sleuthing this. Invertzoo (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Get well soon, Invertzoo!

Thanks Bink. Invertzoo (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

So, wow, apparently there was a big deletion brouhaha on Commons, initiated by Ryulong: Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. It looks like all these images were previously uploaded by User:Albianmoonlight who is a sockpuppet of User:Superbrightidea, as can be seen in the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Superbrightidea/Archive. So a photo series that seemed harmless or annoying or even kind of interesting is now the activity of a banned editor and should be removed. I will ping Eeekster, Delicious carbuncle, Antandrus, Gavia immer, HelloAnnyong and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry since they all took part in the SPI. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Here you go. I had mixed feelings about this from the beginning. On one hand, I liked the photos -- I thought they were quite good -- but Wikipedia just isn't the right venue for this kind of project and wanted to convince the artist not do it this way. But if they're making sockpuppets and putting them back, they're going to have to go. Antandrus (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, some of them are nice shots (others aren't) but the guy is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I have just nominated all of the photos for deletion on Commons. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

After reading the story above, I agree, this guy is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The sockpuppet technique makes it hard to have a conversation with him, perhaps a total block on all the users accounts and just keep an open eye to assure that he does not popup again under yet another name. Here is the users website: http://www.davidhorvitz.com/ providing further conformation of his "project" (game) - I support the nomination. Pinging Ryūlóng, whom had nominated these in 2011 this deletion request.. talk→ WPPilot  06:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

When you say "I support the nomination", what nomination are you supporting? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 10:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Duncanspoint.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Silverstrandstatebeach.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Moonstone_Beach_in_Cambria,_California.JPG
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Looking_west_into_the_pacific_ocean_from_sonoma_state_beach_in_california.JPG talk→ WPPilot  12:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet nonimated all these photos for deletion. Invertzoo (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the research, now we know what is going on. I think it's important to rigorously quell any behavior of this type as best as we can, because it is quite disruptive to the encyclopedia. This is not a playground, and we really don't need people exploiting the open nature of Wikipedia in order to serve their own purposes. That kind of thing is selfish and disrespectful to the overall project, and to the community of volunteers who work so hard to create good content here, content that is extremely useful to people worldwide and provides to some what amounts to a free education, a very noble goal. Whether or not someone else may believe this other stuff could be conceptualized as "art" is really irrelevant under the circumstances. Invertzoo (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been busy most of the day and I'm just seeing all of this now. Yeah, this is exactly what happened a few years ago but no one at the commons apparently bothers to keep people away like this. We should keep an eye on these various beach articles to prevent further disruption in the future and to identify this guy when he shows up after his latest slew of uploaded photos is deleted, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've also discovered other accounts that had been active in 2012 through postings on Horvitz's blog. We should contact WMF and have them send a cease and decist to Horvitz.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree on the cease and desist, but it might be hard to track him. His site is registered at Tocows, behind a proxy. The address in in Canada, and his website site looks like he might even be in Europe? The who is data at least provides a e mail, via proxy never the less perhaps a universal sockpuppet block on every account, he might figure it out before WMF has to expend valuable resources on Mr. Horvitz's stunt. talk→ WPPilot  13:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There's probably some attorney to contact because checkuser's not going to be of any use to these two year old accounts I keep finding. And he's gone international with his disruption too. I found File:石澳村.jpg which is him in Hong Kong. And a self-portrait has been on mood disorder and melancholic depression for years and was copied across several projects, not to mention File:Sacco vanzetti sculpture.JPG which preceeds his original spate of disruption.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Brought this up at WP:ANI#David Horvitz.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Links to relevant discussions and pages:

• Commons deletion requests, 4 July 2014. Lots of David Horvitz images listed for deletion.
• David Horvitz blog where he states his intention to continue disrupting Wikipedia. "Recently I began to re-upload the photographs slowly. Instead of trying to hide in space, I am trying to hide in time".
• Wikipedia:ANI#David_Horvitz
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive666#Something fishy on Pelican State beach
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive675#Attention Wikipedia - you have been conquered,,,

I now have every one of his previously targeted articles on my watchlist, and I intend to revert any obvious Horvitz photos I see posted to them. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

As an absurdist art project, Horvitz tried to delete his own Wikipedia biography in September, 2013. You will probably find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Horvitz to be interesting reading. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

One more to look at

Regarding our buddy with the buem at the beach:

1. See [1]... "In December 2010 and January 2011, Horvitz drove the whole California coast up the Pacific Coast Highway, starting at Border Field State Park on the Mexican Border, and ending at Pelican State Beach on the Oregon Border. At each of 50 chosen locations, Horvitz took pictures of the ocean view, standing with the frame of the shot. All of these images were then placed onto the Wikipedia articles about the different locations. [9]

During the exhibition of this work at at San Francisco Camerawork in San Francisco, this work began to generate controversy on Wikipedia, with some editors removing his images.[10][11] Horvtiz then incorporated this material into the documentation of the work.[12]" Note: this pdf *& this about the efforts.

1. Also see this page which seems to be a different bio, and orphaned.

I found two more images and nominated them as well. I was sad to see that someone on the talk thread felt that commons editors don't care to root this kind of thing out... We care a lot. Thank you for letting me know. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Aha! It looks like you're on it. I will take a look at your nominated-for-deletion files of today and vote in support if I think they are related. Can you go look at the ones I nominated yesterday? I think they call that quid pro quo. ;^)

I see you have initiated a discussion with Jim Woodward. The more eyes the better. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

QPQ done and here's four more

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chessmithcongsforbrums.ogg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chessmith6.JPG
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dmtart.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marcel Duchamp's grave in Rouen, France.jpg And yes, I asked Jim for help, he's awesome and very interested in beaches, natural and nautical images. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings again! Please see: here for more on the beach buem. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Those four are obviously the same sockpuppeter. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding even more Commons Sockpuppets of Albianmoonlight

Hi again Binkster... More from the Beach Buem, although now branching out into 1/2 view, 3/4ths and even an odd frontal or two. Uploads are from same camera but now in larger file sizes.

1) Commons: User talk:Undoingpropertie - Welcomed 17 October 2012

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Undoingpropertie zapped

2) Commons: User talk:Undoingpropertee - Welcomed 17 October 2012

• File:Privately owned coastal property in connecticut under developement.JPG in use on Private property
• File:A view of new haven harbor from east shore.JPG in use on New Haven Harbor

3) Commons: User talk:Undoingproperty - Uploaded 17 October 2012

• File:Fairfieldbeach.jpg in use on Fairfield Beach (Fairfield)
• File:Weekapaugatsunset.jpg was on, now gone, see diff here
• File:Branfordcoast.jpg in use on Branford, Connecticut
• File:Bay Shore, New York.jpg in use on West Bay Shore, New York

4) Commons: User:Fillipmagazine

• All uploads were nominated for deletion by another editor

I am sending a note to another Commons admin about these as well.

Regarding various music/art pages which may have compromised material'

• A Soundtrack for a Polaroid of Two Trees in Indiana see Special:Contributions/Whale Fight

• Sunset Rubdown Introducing Moonface see User_talk:Fulmerg the references are to two discography sites, doesn't seem particularly notable 2 song EP.

• Bas Jan Ader the citation here to Horvitz only really speaks about Horvitz, and contains no biographical material to add to this article.

• Mishka Henner probably needs a BLP tag; only listing of Horvitz is the allegation that this artist showed in a show that may have occurred in Mexico City. See "2012" (no citation).

• List of Bard College people Horvitz is allegedly an alum (no citation).

• Szpilman Award Horvitz was allegedly shortlisted in 2011 (no citation).

• User:Foreverisnotnow worked on Zach Houston who seems to be notable, but the name seems familiar style somehow.

• Xiu Xiu discography - some kind of musical band thing allegedly with Horvitz in it.

• Yonsei (Japanese diaspora) Horvitz is listed as a notable individual on this page, with the only link to his own website.

• The Smell all refs are "The Smell", mtv and some unlikely to be reliable sources

File:Thesmell.jpg claims to be photo by David Horvitz. I removed the "bot move to commons" tag as it is not a candidate for a move, the uploader is not same as Horvitz. Uploaded by Rasputinfa Special:Contributions/Rasputinfa Rasputinfa who is blocked. Notice the list of articles that Rasputinfa worked on includes "The Smell" and "Xiu Xiu", etc. They also uploaded

• • File:Jamiexiuxiu.jpg
  • File:Hannah_Arendts_Grave.JPG
  • Special:Upload?wpDestFile=Newdeerhoof.jpg was already deleted

and worked on

• • Genevi%C3%A8ve_Castr%C3%A9e
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genevi%C3%A8ve_Castr%C3%A9e

Rasputina also commened on this AFD, plus User:Charmingtedious who worked on the above picked up a pile of deletes, see User talk:Charmingtedious and promptly removed them from his talkpage.

• Casiotone for the Painfully Alone, few refs for a group inactive since 2014. User:Nowa was here too.

• Reviewing Special:Contributions/Duckyducky led me to the Spinto Band Page, which had a copyrighted image at the top: Special:Contributions/Drinkupbuttercup1234 uploaded only one photo which I have marked speedy since the flickr page it came from was all rights reserved.

• Here's another musician of possibly limited notability, Brendan Fowler , also worked on by Rasputinfa.

• Horvitz is listed as an alumni at El Segundo High School with citation needed.

• That led me to Portrait of Uta Barth in her home. Photo by David Horvitz, but uploaded by Commons User:Getstalk whose only contrib is this picture, claimed to be "own" in the upload data. This may be another possible sock.

• I find Bas_Jan_Ader history page to have some interesting additions by another editor apparently quite interested in this artist.

• Parenthetical Girls (Nowa was here too) ...

• Koto_(instrument) "David Horvitz played the instrument in a contemporary indie rock scene setting on Xiu Xiu's album, The Air Force." hardly seems important enough for inclusion.

• List of people with major depressive disorder "David Horvitz, Californian artist, published a book about his depression in a title called, 'Sad Depressed People.'[137]" only reference to this "book" is here a blog link.

Most of this is Wikipedia. I've nominated all possible images on Commons for either speedy or deletion discussions, please let me know what you find out about any of the foregoing. I really wish all these socks would get lost in the dryer - this WP:GAME is annoying to sort out.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Holy cow, this guy has been busier than I thought. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And I found even more this am, please see here for a bolded list of new deletion nominations. Some of the photos even have non-English titles, oy vey! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Godzilla (2014 film). It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia

Sooo, how is a review of the film innapropriate? I see IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, etc.. all have reviews listed. I am fully aware of the nofollow tags and how they work so thank you for your explanation. The content is non-promotional as I am not selling any products or affiliate program, just honest reviews and thought on the film that I feel Is relevant. Perhaps you should be less heavy handed or remove the other movie review sites.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.208.22 (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This removal of your link was not by me, it was by STATicVapor. I agree with the removal, because the film review is from your blog, not from an established film review website. Looking at your contributions, it is clear that you do nothing on Wikipedia except add links to your blog. It looks like you are not here to help build the encyclopedia; instead you are here to promote your blog. Binksternet (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for helping me, I'am new on here and having a hard time learing how to post. Need to read more how to do. I did post on wrong page, was trying to post to other page. I read your page on you; Awsome!

American's for Independence (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for the input on Stevie Nicks. Jonel469 (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

B.T.W. did You have anything to do with the Bink video on Sid Meier's Railroads! ? Jonel469 (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That was not me helping with the Bink video for Sid. Some other Bink, of which there are several. Thanks for the cheeseburger! Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Disappearing carriage" for the gun itself?

I say again...where, when? Doesn't seem to be too common at all in my experience, except from cloned sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I searched Google Books in the 19th century and found a slew of results. See this link. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't gone through all of 'em, but the first 3 pages seem to be -all- references to the carriage itself, not the gun. Anmccaff (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Went through the first 50, one of the last 10 was arguably a metathesistic usage. The rest were all references to the carriage proper, and quite often used the word "gun" or "rifle" (usually abbreviated) in the same sentence, or nearby. Anmccaff (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The article Disappearing gun is not really about the gun, it is about the technology for having the gun hide from the enemy while reloading. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem I see is that it is factually incorrect. "Disappearing guns" weren't often called "disappearing carriages" in their day, as the cites you just gave show. I'm moving this discussion to the talk page for disappearing gun, to see if there is any other objection to cleaning up the intro sentence.Anmccaff (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Your recent editing history at Anarcho-capitalism 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. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Mister Wallace

Another one: 5.81.230.52 - once again, Let it Be and Gorillaz, and once again the IP resolves to Cambridgeshire.

I've been tagging the user pages of the suspect IPs with {{Sock|Mrwallace05}}, and that adds him to this list.

You might want to add this the the SPI. Cheers. Radiopathy •talk• 23:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen some IPs from elsewhere, for instance Israel and Serbia, that appear to be controlled briefly by our socker dude. It's a tedious case. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert Palmer

With no respect intended Binknsternet, kiss my ass. Your Mary Ambrose lies are just that. Lies. How you continue to get to be an editor here is beyond me. You're a bully and a liar. I have loads of back up for my information, unlike you. I am reporting your for bullying and harassment and posting false information. Mary Ambrose is the hoax, no matter how you spin in. Consider yourself reported. Zabadu (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Your continuation of a hoax puts you in line for a block. This edit of yours is supported by nothing in the way of reliable sources, and is an extension of this nonsense hoax stuff you wrote five months ago, and this egregious fabrication of a hoax which followed it. You wrote back then that a certain "Geraldine Edwards" was Robert Palmer's girlfriend, your assertion supported by no good references. In fact, fake hoax references were created by IPs from San Diego, as I documented at Mark Arsten's user page: User_talk:Mark_Arsten/Archive_the_sixth#Geraldine_Edwards_hoax. A later post on Mark's talk page by San Diego IP 174.xx covers the same hoax and complains about my 'slanderous, defamatory' interference. Yet another IP from San Diego posted to your talk page the exact same stuff, as if you were pretending to be someone else, supporting your own position.

You should know I will interfere in every hoax I discover on Wikipedia! Binksternet (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• By the way, the IP has now initiated an ANI thread against you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for your support of me during a recent situation regarding another editor. I really appreciate it, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 00:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome. Best! Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Walhberg

Sorry about that revert. I hit the wrong button.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No sweat! I do that, too, from time to time (he said sheepishly.) Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

MedCom case update: Schiller Institute

Dear Binksternet: Hello. I'm writing to you regarding a Mediation Committee case that you are involved in, or have some connection with, Schiller Institute.

I have written an initial analysis, and requested contribution from all mediation parties. Please read what I've written and participate at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Schiller Institute. Thank you.

If you have any questions or concerns relating to the case, please do let me know. Thank you very much. Tristessa (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Jen Psaki protection

Please discuss the issue on the talk page rather than engage in revert warring. Thank you. Go Phightins! 15:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. Please see my comment on ANEW. Go Phightins! 15:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I note that the particular material was also removed by Dougweller and BullRangifer and Location. Arthur Rubin, another experienced editor, made some changes after Doug did his. A talk page thread on this material was started yesterday Talk:List_of_conspiracy_theories#Serbian_content (But you, Steeletrap, have not commented on the talk page, have you?) BullRangifer said "don't edit war" in one summary. (You did not make a comment on Bull's talk page, did you?) The IP (located in Serbia) added the material 6 times and is now blocked. The IP certainly is an edit-warrior and NPA is not violated. BITE is not a policy. With these factors in mind, your motive for commenting here is problematic. E.g., it was done merely to harass Binksternet. – S. Rich (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

inappropriate use of the article talk page

I assume you are familiar with the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

These discussions are inappropriate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=617114870&oldid=617110112

I do not have an account, asserting such things on the article talk page is not useful.

• You are to: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."

• You are to: "Be welcoming to newcomers: People new to Wikipedia may be unfamiliar with policy and conventions. Please do not bite the newcomers. If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake. You should politely and gently point out their mistake, reference the relevant policy/guideline/help pages, and suggest a better approach."

• "Do not misrepresent other people"

• "Do not ask for another's personal details"

• "If a discussion goes off-topic, the general practice is to hide it by using the templates"

84.106.11.117 (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I call bullshit; you are no newcomer unfamiliar with Wikipedia.

So far, you are the only one who thinks the discussion is inappropriate. What I am seeing there is that people are discussing you in the context of trying to determine how best to improve the article with you involved, so that makes the discussion into one about article improvement, not solely about you. Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm simply following the guidelines : Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

If you don't like the guidelines you may discuss them on the guideline talk page.

For the moment I don't dare involve myself beyond this. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

But you were daring enough to try and shut down discussion about you as a disruptive element. It looks to me as if you are taking advantage of the benefits of anonymity. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Not democratically elected

Mossadeq I don't know how html and wikipedia works and it won't fit on the undo section of the page so i apologize for doing it this way:

How many links to academic books proving that this election is not democratic do you need?:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=VoU4AI-yq7UC&pg=PA403&dq=mossadeq+prime+minister+election&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BwjGU6PFCsyyyATH8IA4&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=mossadeq%20prime%20minister%20election&f=false page 215 79 of 100 deputies voted for Mossadeq
• http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/Fragile%20Resistance%20e-book.pdf page 285
• http://books.google.com/books?id=ixU33FaG_dgC&pg=PA240&dq=mossadeq+prime+minister+election&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZgvGU8uNCYOsyAT-6YCIBQ&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=mossadeq%20prime%20minister%20election&f=false page 240 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.10.142 (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Of all the people on Wikipedia who should be arguing against the phrase "democratically elected" it should be me. In fact, it was me a couple of years ago, after I had been looking at a bunch of books about 1950s Iran, for instance The Shah by Abbas Milani.

I was in discussion after discussion explaining that Mosaddegh's appointment or selection or confirmation was not the same as being democratically elected, but I was shown that source after source emphasizes the fact that a democratically operating government went through their democratic process to put the guy in position as prime minister. Here are some of the conversations that took place:

• Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 2#Elected? – April 2006
• Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 2#democratically-elected (again) – December 2007
• Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 2#Lead – January 2009
• Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 2#Democratically elected once again – February 2009
• Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 6#Resolving differences - try again? Editor assistance? Mediation? Arbitration? – See posts by Batvette and A Quest For Knowledge, August 2009
• Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 6#First Sentence of the Lede lead – August 2009
• Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 7#Beware WP:OWN – October 2009
• Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 8#Deletions by 124.197.15.138 – December 2009
• Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 9#Smokescreen – March 2010
• Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 10#Lead – March 2010
• Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 11#democratically elected? – June 2010
• Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 12#RfC: Democratically elected – September 2010
• Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 13#Disingenuous lede – March 2011
• Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 14#"Democratically elected" delete and rvt – June 2011
• Talk:Mohammad_Mosaddegh/Archive_2#"Democratically elected" –July 2012
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive774#Mass deleting of a well-sourced statement
• Talk:Mohammad_Mosaddegh/Archive_2#Unilateral_removal_of_democratically-elected – October 2012
• Talk:Mohammad_Mosaddegh/Archive_2#What_.22democratically_elected_Prime_Minister.22_means – October 2012
• Talk:Mohammad_Mosaddegh/Archive_2#The_.22democratically_elected_debate.22_and_Abbas_Milani – November 2012

So you can see there was quite a lot of discussion on this topic, but the result is that the words "democratically elected" appear in the article. Certainly the actual process can be described, from Mosaddegh's power base becoming prominent, to the selection by the shah, then the affirmation vote by the Majlis, then the shah formally signing him in as PM. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't mean to be a bother, from the academic side there is not much debate so it was pretty shocking to me that it would be deleted like that. I'm not sure why that Poyani guy wrote much of what he did. How is 'Lonely Planet' a "reliable source" while innumerable academic sources disagreeing are not "reliable"?! Would the British PM also be considered "democratically elected"? That is not sound logic. Iran under the Shah was a Constitutional Monarchy according to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy#Former_constitutional_monarchies

Almost all sources call his GOVERNMENT democratically elected because the Majles was voted in through democratic means, but the 'people' have no choice in who the Shah nominated and who became PM so how can that be a "democratic election"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.10.142 (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my thinking goes along those lines. Another point of debate is that Mosaddegh resigned his position on July 16, 1952, because he had asked for control of the military and the Shah said no. The Shah replaced Mosaddegh with Qavam as PM on July 17, 1952. Huge riots in the street took place on July 19, 20 and 21, with the largest on July 21. The military fought with the protesters, killing 30–40. The Shah asked Qavam to resign, which he did, and then the Shah re-appointed Mosaddegh, also giving him control of military. This sequence shows even more strongly that Mosaddegh was prime minister because of the Shah rather than because of voting results. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Back?

See my talk page, see [2] - do you know how to dearchive? Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

And thanks for your help at the SPI. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

IP adding POV

Hi Binkstermet, you must have seen the recent spat of IP editors adding unsourced non-neutral content to some of the Madonna articles. Can you please let me know how to make them stop? Adding warning templates doesn't seem to be working since it is always different IPs, but nevertheless it is the same person. Should we try protecting the pages? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we should go to WP:RPP and ask for protection. Binksternet (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet I have requested for protection, but it is kinda getting disruptive no? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

An odd one

I sense some dogma, or COI in recent edits by some oddly named editors on Sequoia Park Zoo; particularly see the allegations of drug use, etc. I don't want to touch it as I live too close to the facility and I know some of the people who may be messing with this page. I have previously sat fairly hard on one of their employees who let the peacocks loose in that article earlier this year. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think they two editors are the same person, but that doesn't mean as much as their violations of WP:BLP. I've reverted them and I've trimmed some older controversial stuff that was not supported. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we have a good start on keeping the BLP violations down to a dull roar. The sockpuppet case was a success. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent news on that case, Binkster, the games continue on COM, however, see [3] and [4]. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your help at SPI Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I help where I can...

Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Help + Co-op requested: Human Shield

Dear Blink,

you reverted my edits to the article human shield:

"Rv... POV sources from one side of the conflict."

Would you please co-operate with me, because I believe, that not all informations added by me deserve this razor revert.

Could we co-operate and make a version, that would fit to your/wikipedia standards, because, it might be, that, while I am editing a very lot since wikipedia's beginnings, did not came up to the standards developed by the wikipedia comm..

What I would go like for is something like this: The int. comm. regards the use of human shields and the use of indiscriminate warfare like qassam rockets and suicide bombers as illegal under int. law. Hamas and some Palestinians deny this. -- based on quality sources that are available.

Please let us co-operate on this; I did invite the second reverter Sean.hoyland also.

Sincerely, -- 85.182.63.227 (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for asking nicely. If you are banned by Wikipedia then you cannot edit here, not even by asking me. In any case, the information you would like to have in the article is one-sided. It ignores the fact that the people in Gaza have been forced by Israel to live in densely populated communities.[5] Wikipedia should not be an agent for propaganda. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Blisternet,

1. I am not banned, was not banned!
2. Your answer/belief, whom got whom forced to live where they live is irrelevant in regard to information on the article "[shield]", which I edited, and that where reverted by you recently!
3. Documented information, which I like to ad by co-op with you, about a leadership acting aktively, forcing/provoking civilians to act as human shields en masse, using aktively thousands of rockets, that aim by design not accurately at civil-centers, hence indiscriminate as a modus operandi, can not ignore "the fact that the people in Gaza have been forced by Israel to live in densely populated communities" , as you believe -- it is an other subject, part of marginalia. Btw people today mostly live in cities/densly areas, without a-weaponry/bunkers under hospitals and kindergardens - one exception Hamsa/Gaza! Why? Where to fire hamas rockets from into a neighbour state - quite illegal under int. law - it not the question. It is clear, that is what terrorists do for a living, that is their raison d'etre. There was plenty space for pali-milit. bases, rocket bunkers, amunition storages, outside kindergardens, hospitals.
4. Documented material shows recently, adding to your source above, that a) some civiliasn flee, b) in a second phase some civilians are coming back, after effords by Hamas to let this distinct colectivity to act as human shields, which makes this spec. people commbatands!
5. If you revert on POV, please make an effort to co-op with me to get a version of that documented multi-side-sourced info that I provided! We can place your believes into it, if they were fundamental and sourced. Thank you, hope to see foreward! --85.181.242.126 (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Is this article human shield a field of your expertise at all? Your article history, quite fastidiously listed on your private pages, do not hint in that direction - is it so? CU --85.181.242.126 (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've got no patience for Israel–Palestine conflicts. Every time I look at that stuff, I think that both sides are wrong. Israel's kibbutz system is a sort of human shield, putting pioneers in harm's way. So both sides are using human shields. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You are so right, so right! I believe, there is no Barnstar 4 you to gain in here! So why you not just try something -- new? To be consistent to your say, abstain and show restraint would perfectly fitting your disturbances, I prescribed. -- So long, have a nice week, enjoy life, catch some vibes man, and lets just things go, man.. --92.229.69.119 (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Skye McCole Bartusiak

Just a heads-up, if I may: I removed the "recent death" template from this page. The template page says it "should only be used in cases where many editors (perhaps dozens or more) are editing the article on the same day, and it should be removed as soon as the editing goes down to a normal level again. Do not use it merely to tag the article of a recently deceased person, as that would defeat the template's purpose." That kind of editing is not (yet) apparent. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I expected "dozens" to be editing the page because of her youth. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As did I, actually ... xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther and Nick-D look at examples of electronic media Op-ed: TomStar81 on the shot heard around the world

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Block 46.121.81.8

This user keeps making uncited changes to the Sting and Police pages. I have reversed changes that you have already reversed, but this user needs blocking.Rodericksilly (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so I cannot block anybody. I gave the IP two warnings about unreferenced changes. I'll keep an eye on the situation. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

He's back disrupting the Sting page now.Rodericksilly (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Take it to WP:AIV. Radiopathy •talk• 18:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

RM notice

FYI

 – Pointer to discussion that may be relevant to you.

A requested moves discussion in which you participated in Dec. 2013 has been reopened, at Talk:Mustang horse#Alternative proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I have no opinion. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Madonna legacy

Hello Binksternet, following the discussion about Janet Jackson's bloated legacy section, now it is the Madonna legacy section under scrutiny because of its excessive drivel and fan-fluff. It has completely lost its credibility. Would you please help out some with trimming the section and make it professional like you did for Jackson? I already started it out at here and have trimmed about 11KB worth of data but it needs better flow. Please help out. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look when I have time. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

IP 114.31.218.104 continues to revert on Good Luck Flag despite being blocked twice - what can be done??

Hi, Binksternet - This situation has really gotten out of hand. The IP not only continues to revert to unsourced content but has now twice also included unsourced defamatory personal attacks. The last time this happened, admin suppressed the reverted content. But now it has appeared again, and I really don't know what to do, because I don't want to be drawn into an edit war. Is there no way to stop this altogether? Many thanks for any advice and for having already been very helpful in dealing with this. Ailemadrah (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I will request protection. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Bink, it's a static IP, so I think blocking is better than protection. Looking at their contribs, this is all they do. I've blocked for a month. Bishonen | talk 05:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC).

Good on ya, Bish. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both! However, I do think that protection will be more effective than blocking, since the IP has continued to revert after having already been blocked twice. As soon as the month is over, the IP will definitely revert again, and the personal attacks might even escalate. Ailemadrah (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

rp on my own page. Bishonen | talk 08:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC).

FAC

Given your participation in this peer review, you might be interested in leaving comments for this FAC. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's good to see you stoked about this endeavor, but the youthful Katy Perry has quite a lot of her career ahead of her. If you succeed in taking the biography to FA, it will suffer a lot of change in the next 50 years. To me, it doesn't seem worth the effort. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I could see how stability could be an issue at certain points, but at least I didn't nominate right after something like a new album announcement. My goal was to have this as "Today's Featured Article" for her upcoming 30th birthday this October, though when things don't seem quite up to par I'll take to GOCE. In a way, it does appear easier for the deceased to pass for FAC/GAN than the living as far as stability is concerned. Thank you very much for all your input during PR, though. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 22:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Two more

Hiya Binkster: Check these out [6] & [7]. MOS? Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The first link looks like someone local who hates a certain brewpub. The second link is our friend David Horvitz doing his sock dance. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

AN

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Reza Shah

Hello, Binksternet; you reverted my edit to the Reza Shah page. I do not understand why. - I had added Mirpanj which was Reza Shah's surname, before he officially changed it to Pahlavi; and - I changed the word "shah" to "king", because this is an English page ... and "shah" in English is "king"/ ummmmmm .... care to explain your undo? Regards, Kamran the Great (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Mirpanj (or mir panj) was a military rank created during the reign of Naser al-Din Shah Qajar. Taken from an older term for governor (the governor of Ardabil was called the Mir Panj in the 19th century), the new rank was added to the top of the existing ranks to make the Western equivalent of Lieutenant General—the commander of an army division. In the chaos of the reign of Ahmad Shah Qajar in late 1920, the new prime minister Fathollah Khan Akbar gave Rezā Khan the title Rezā Khan Mir Panj so that with this very high rank, Rezā Khan could take control of Iran's Ghazak Division (an elite military formation now called the Persian Cossack Brigade) and save the country from disintegration in the face of British–Soviet power struggles in the region. Instead, Rezā Khan met with the British and made arrangements with them to accept their assistance so that he could carry out a coup against the Persian government. This he did on February 21, 1921. After some debate in the Majlis he was made the Minister of War, dropping the "Mir Panj" title, confirmed in this position by Ahmad Shah Qajar. By the end of 1922 he had taken over as the head of the government. In 1925 he became Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, founding the Pahlavi dynasty. See Revolutionary Iran and the United States: Low-intensity Conflict in the Persian Gulf, pages 62–63. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thus "Mirpanj" was not a surname. Also, the Persian king of kings is called the shah, just like the Russian emperor is called the tsar. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I take my hat off to you, sir. Thanks for the clarification. yours, Kamran the Great (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Stormfront

I think it's actually quite an important point that Stormfront doesn't consider itself neo-Nazi or white supremacist or a hate site. You wouldn't know that from reading the intro to the article the way it was written before I edited it. I assume you're against Stormfront. So am I. But that's no reason to elide a rather important point. Look at the intros to the articles for David Duke and Louis Farrakhan, for example. Those intros incorporate the widespread negative allegations against their subjects, without implying that these allegations are somehow beyond dispute. Note that my edit, just like the current intros to those two other articles, does not state that the subject is not in fact white supremacist or neo-Nazi or a hate site. Renren8123 (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• I support Binksernet's revert. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The proper balance is achieved by telling the reader that the group is hateful, supremacist, neo-Nazi, etc. Virtually no objective sources exist which accept the group's own protestations as valid. Your "quite an important point" is presented to the reader deep in the article where it says the characterization as supremacist "is contested by Don Black as an inaccurate description". What we must portray in the article is the "balance" found in the sources which is very strongly tilted against Stormfront. I hold that the balance is so far tilted that the lead section must simply ignore what is essentially a fringe opinion, held only by the few who speak up for Stormfront. Thus we are following WP:NPOV in removing the fringe opinion from having any prominence in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ringo Starr

What's wrong with using Grohl's quote on Ringo Starr when it was published in Uncut magazine (January 2007, issue 116) and I've used that as the source? Rodericksilly (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

In your initial contribution you followed WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and said the text was from http://www.fooarchive.com/gpb/daveonringo.htm. There at that particular fansite page, the text is not attributed to Uncut magazine, and no date is supplied. If you go up one level to the index of "Grohl's Poor Brain" then you find that the text is attributed to "Uncut, 2006".

When next you brought the text into the article, you said it was from Uncut magazine, the January 2007 issue, but it was the same text as earlier. It's clear that you merely changed the reference, but that you got the text from fooarchive.com.

So I looked around the interwebs and found this page showing the January 2007 copy of Uncut for sale, and it lists "Dave Grohl on Ringo" in the contents. It's clear that Grohl did say something about Ringo in Uncut.

Meanwhile, back at the fansite fooarchive.com, they copied the Uncut text into their website at least by February 5, 2007, so this helps establish the time frame of Grohl's piece in Uncut. However, the fansite said the piece came out in 2006, and this is obviously wrong, so the big question here is how reliable is the fansite for what was printed in Uncut magazine? A secondary concern is the copyright violation that was made by the fansite in taking text from Uncut.

I don't think we can assume the fansite is reliable, and I don't think we can quote Grohl at any length using their text. Instead, we can say that he thinks Starr is a showman, that he influenced a whole English style of drumming, etc. We can summarize for the reader what Grohl thinks, but copying and pasting fansite text into Wikipedia is against WP:RS.

Finally, I think that such huge quotes are not good for the article. A year ago when it achieved Featured Article status, it had only two big quotes, one from Steve Smith, and one from Phil Collins. I don't think our reader is best served by providing more big quotes. They tend to clog up the reading flow. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this to Talk:Ringo Starr because it's not so much about my actions or your actions but of general interest to topic editors. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Jeb Bush's book

Hello. I appreciate your concerns. I answered on the WP Conservatism page, although my reply is a bit all over the place--sorry about that. Best for you to look at my updated draft and see the changes I made, then look at my reply on the WP. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright on Susan B. Anthony Page

Hi, thanks for the heads up on the copyright issue. I think we may be alright because the author's name was given at the beginning of the sentence, and a footnoted citation for the original text was at the end of that sentence. The wikipedia page on close paraphrasing says "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...," together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph." In any case, to remove any doubt, I have again shortened the sentence but this time using more original English. Thanks, AvelliMach1 (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a comparison between your edit and the original versions:

• "...if a child was unborn at the time of its father's death, the child could be forcibly taken from the mother at birth and given to a guardian pre-appointed in the father's will." Series of edits by AvelliMach1
• "...if a child were still unborn at the father's death, she or he could be forcibly taken from the mother at birth and given to a guardian previously appointed by the father. 1995 book
• "... if a child were still unborn at the time of the father’s death, the child could be forcibly taken from the mother at birth and given to a guardian previously appointed by the father..." 1998 journal

This very close paraphrasing would have been okay if we had attributed it explicitly to Derr, as you note above, so the reader knew this was Derr speaking. In this manner it would have "in-text attribution" as required by WP:PARAPHRASE. The construction would be something like "Pro-life feminist researcher Derr said..." Or we could have directly quoted one of the two Derr versions. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Whitesnake

Not worth an edit war, but I disagree with you that the Prown book isn't strong enough to use as a cite for Whitesnake being heavy metal, however much I dislike the term. He refers to tracks on Slide It In having "a strong heavy metal flavor"; the Whitesnake album being "what is considered the definitive commercial metal album of the eighties", and calls the band "an emerging metal powerhouse". Isn't that enough? I totally agree with your removal of glam metal and the poor ref. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Although on further investigation, Prown seems to call almost all vaguely heavy groups heavy metal with little real analysis of that genre, so I'll leave it up to you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see what you're saying.

On my first removal, I noticed that the Prown et al book says on page 211 that the songs "Ready an' Willing" and "Fool for Your Loving" "broke through the basic blues-rock formula to touch on heavy metal", and that the song "Ain't Gonna Cry No More" was "raved up to near-metal levels" as it progressed to its conclusion. These statements I understood to be not quite strong enough to assert a heavy metal genre on the band as a whole. I guess I missed the bit about being a "metal powerhouse", which is definitely strong enough.

The Dave Thompson book casually puts Whitesnake in the group of British New Wave of Heavy Metal, so I'm going to restore the genre of heavy metal.

Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, cool. These things are always at least a little bit subjective; you could probably find sources for many genres, but the ones we have now ought to be fairly stable. Cheers! Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't care at all about genres if there were not so many genre warriors out there, reverting each other back and forth, for instance one of them pushing glam metal while the other decries glam metal, and so on. The larger trend of additive accretion results in the genre parameter in the infobox eventually bloating with too many genres. It makes me wonder whether the people doing this are obsessive individuals, or whether there are enterprises paying people to put an artist, album or song into a particular genre stream, such that Wikipedia is scraped by bots to determine what songs are selected to be in streaming media. I'm gonna go with obsessive people for now. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Some bands suffer from genre warriors more than others: Thin Lizzy for example is pretty stable, whereas Black Sabbath is the subject of an awful lot of addition and removal. It's the usual "rock or metal" argument, and then someone adds "doom metal" and then "proto-metal" and "stoner rock" and you think, "Hang on a minute..." It gets ridiculous. I've seen four or five genres on an article about one song! I tend towards your theory of obsessive individuals, having conversed with a few. They usually protest along the lines of "This band is obviously genre X, you only have to listen to it..." However, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if your other theory had a streak of truth in it too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Rust

Howdy Bink. I assume you have a busy Wiki-schedule these days, but can you find some spare time to review Rust in Peace, a GA candidate of some buddy of mine? Big super thanks if you're willing to do the review.--Retrohead (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me think about it. I'm on vacation this week, visiting family and going on lots of outings, so probably not right now. I will check back later and see if anybody has started the review. 16:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries Bink, the nomination was accepted by CrowzRSA. In case you're still interested in reviewing some of Megadeth's albums, there's the peer review on Endgame located here. You probably know that these albums don't attract much interest at Wikipedians who are doing music–related articles, so any input is highly appreciated. By the way, I coincidentally saw that you've worked with Slayer on your profile (big fan of theirs), so thought your suggestions will be very useful.--Retrohead (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I put Rust in Peace up for GA review. As Retrohead mentioned, CrowzRSA opened the page for the review (on August 8). However, he has not shown any editing activity since, thus meaning that the review has been untouched since. I am going to wait another 2 days for him to do something with it. If he doesn't touch it by then, I'm going to have another editor tackle it.

Retrohead previously asked you if you would be willing to do the GA already and you indicated that you were open to the idea. If there isn't any activity there by August 15, would you be willing to step in and take over the review? If you are busy and can't, that's not an issue, I understand and will seek someone else for it then. Thanks for your consideration.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep track and see if CrowzRSA returns to the task. If not, I'll review the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I appreciate it.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, Crowz has not returned, if you would be interested in starting the review tomorrow (Aug 15), I'll leave a message on his talk page excusing him from the job. If you cannot, just let me know. Sorry if I seem a bit pushy with this, I've been waiting over 4 months for a review for that page and am starting to lose patience with the system. Thanks again and take care.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In June and July, Crowz was gone from Wikipedia for 12 and 10 days in a row, so I don't think we should count him out yet. If he's gone for 14 days this time then I'll do the review. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Maafa 21

So what did you think about including a fact-check of the film's claims under the synopsis, rather than in a separate section? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, and I want to implement it, but I'm spending time with family near a National Park, and we're going on lots of little outings. It's unlikely I will have time this week. Binksternet (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Sound Level Meter

Im not sure how I went against the rules of adding to Wikipedia. How can I add that information without it being taken down or flagged. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.142.238 (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You are promoting Larson Davis. You are using URLs such as http://noisetutor.pcb.com/ST1_1549_831_Index.html (which goes to Larson Davis) and larsondavis.com, and the URLs are not neutral. The text you are adding promotes by description the gear sold by Larson Davis, for instance you describe a heater feature to reduce the chance of condensation on the microphone, a feature found on Larson Davis gear.

Wikipedia is not the place to promote Larson Davis. Instead, you should find WP:SECONDARY sources discussing various noise meters. Binksternet (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi Binkster, please take a look at your commons page, and also at these: page 1, page 2. I don't know a lot about contemporary musicians these days, but those two pages seem a little light on references and long on pr. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

In case you missed my follow up question

Just a friendly message in case you missed my follow up question at WikiProject Military history, found here. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 09:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Harassment!

Hi, Binksternet. I want to inform you that I'm smiling at all. I find you latest comments on David Irving's talk page very offensive and uncivil, and seriously considering reporting you for harassment. While I disagreed that "writer" was the right description of Irving (per my comments on the talk page) you remarked:

"Please stop beating this dead horse. You are supposedly concerned about the word "writer" but then you return to the word "historian" that you have been trying very long to put into the article. I say the word "writer" is appropriate because he writes books, and the word "historian" should be treated much as it is now, with "Irving's reputation as a historian was discredited..." So leave other editors in peace as you will not be successful this time, either. Nobody here agrees with you."

Not only are you totally down talking my suggestions, but also stating that I have been trying to change his status as a writer for a very long time, which I have not; I have only made two suggestions on the talk page and never edited the article itself, nor do I really care that much about Irving's article. You, also, indirectly accused me of being pro-Irving. Where is the WikiLove and civility in all this? Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

POV editing on WP:Competent?

Dear Binkster,

I notice that you mass-reverted a bunch of my edits to WP:Competent. Your justification for removing all of these edits -- including grammatical fixes and layout changes -- was that they were "POV." Can you please describe to me how each of these changes were POV?

Sincerely, Miss Steeletrap. Steeletrap (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your reversion. Bare conclusory statements such as "POV" are meaningless if they are not explained. You refuse to explain your changes. Steeletrap (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Mothers of Invention

Thank you for destroying my work. I've been editing that page for months and without talking to me you erased everything I have done (and more thing including the timeline which wasn't created by me) without talking to me before. I don't need a reference for something that you can find everywhere on the web. Amb1997 (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates under five pillars; and among the most important are WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Your work which you have been doing for months has never been supported by reliable sources, which makes it unverifiable. As such, your style of editing does not fit with Wikipedia's mission. To me, a lot of your changes appear to be unpublished original research which is fine for someone writing a book or paper, but not fine for Wikipedia. If you can show that your changes have been published somewhere else prior to you bringing the changes to Wikipedia, then you will have satisfied my concerns. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Are this sites realiable sources? http://www.webalice.it/oscar.bianco/tcmyc/index.html http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/index.html and http://members.shaw.ca/fz-pomd/lineups/ Amb1997 (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The Charles Ulrich site, http://members.shaw.ca/fz-pomd/, is a self-published website. Information from this website is not reliable unless it is substantiated by more reliable authors such as Mark Brend writing in 2002 for Hal Leonard Publishing. So Brend would be the reliable source we would use, not Ulrich.

The Oscar Bianco site is also self-published. I have not seen Bianco cited in books.

The Román García Albertos site is also self-published. Albertos has been cited by Kelly Fisher Lowe writing for the University of Nebraska Press in 2007. In this case, Lowe would be the reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

So it's better to discuss this with other users on the article's talk page? Amb1997 (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It's better to use reliable sources such as mainstream books, magazines and news pieces. Certainly you are welcome to ask this question of other editors who are interested in Zappa and the Mothers. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for being harsh, but I was annoyed at first. Amb1997 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Predictive Maintenance

Hi Binksternet, I have been having trouble adding content to Wikipedia. I had stuff deleted off sound level meter and now Predictive Maintenance. You mentioned that my reference referred back to my webpage, but if I look at other references. Plant Services refer back to their website as well, how is that possible? As well as Wilcoxin, on the accelerometer page, they refer back to their cite as well. How are they getting away with this?

Also, I'm looking to make a completely new page for a company, a division of PCB Piezotronics. Due to it being the actual company page, are we allowed to use the WebPage on the page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.142.238 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Any Response? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emsobieraski (talk • contribs) 18:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You have worked on the following articles:

• Accelerometer
• Integrated circuit piezoelectric sensor
• PCB Piezotronics
• Integrated electronic piezoelectric accelerometer
• Piezoelectric accelerometer
• Predictive maintenance
• Rolling-element bearing
• Sound level meter
• Infrasound

At these articles, you added the following URLs:

• https://www.imi-sensors.com/predictivemaintenance (IMI Sensors, a PCB Piezotronics Division)
• https://www.imi-sensors.com/DLRegister.aspx?resx=mktg~IMI_Downloads~BFD_682A05_White_Paper.pdf (IMI Sensors, a PCB Piezotronics Division)
• http://www.pcb.com/TechSupport/tech_signal (PCB Piezotronics)

These URLs promote the ideas, products and services of PCB Piezotronics. Such sources are WP:PRIMARY—they are not sufficient to indicate that an idea or product is important. What is needed here to indicate importance is one or more WP:SECONDARY sources from third party observers. If you are worried that another company is "getting away with it" by using primary sources then tell me the relevant articles and references and I will try to clean them up.

Since you are clearly connected to PCB Piezotronics, I don't think it would be a good idea for you to create an article about one of its divisions. A relevant guideline is WP:Conflict of interest, since your goal is promotion of PCB Piezotronics whereas Wikipedia's goal is telling the world a brief summary of important topics. Thus you have a conflict of interest here. If you decide to go ahead and create an article, please put it in draft form first, according to the instructions at WP:Drafts. Your article would be named something like Draft:XYZ Division, the name of the division preceded by "Draft". Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning and will start to look for reliable sources but what I don't understand is how other companies are getting away with it so easily. Bruel & Kjaer has a ton of content on their Wikipedia site, and almost all of their references are links back to their website. How is that possible? They have multiple sources like that, so I don't understand how my content got delted so quickly compared to theirs. Please explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.142.238 (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

TAME

I've semi protected the article for a week. Mjroots (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. See WP:ANI for more such articles. Binksternet (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It will assist us admins if you mention WP:CBAN when reverting edits made by community banned editors. Avoids the chance of you getting accused of edit warring that way. Not that you were at TAME, but it is possible such an accusation could be made in similar circumstances. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

False Accusations

I haven't vandalised any articles, nor have I used multiple IPs to "avoid detection". The Knopfler brothers are English, and despite most people already being aware of this (just because someone is born in one place, doesn't mean they are from there - there will be countless examples of this), I added a reference with a quote from David Knopfler himself stating he's English which is enough clarification I feel. I don't feel the more vague British description is any more acceptable, just another editor may incorrectly believe they are Scottish because they were born in Glasgow.

92.8.24.156 (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

And re the ref on David Knopfler - of course it's a jokey article, but he wouldn't have written that if he was Scottish and not English. Plus, it's fairly well known that he's English.

92.8.24.156 (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I need a favor

Hi there Bink, I need someone to look at the Elizabeth Warren article. An editor changed the photo position in the Recognition section because he states that the present position leaves a big gap at the bottom of the section. He moved the photo up to "hang" from the previous section. On my screen there is plenty of room for the photo to fit comfortably within the section. I even tried resizing my screen appearance up and down a size to be certain that that was not the problem, but the photo still fits well into the section without any weird gap. So I need somebody using a different screen so that I can be sure that it's not just something to do with mine. You can see the discussion on my talk page--no need to get into the discussion unless you want to, but please just let me know how the section appears on your screen. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Andrea Tantaros

Hello. I have edited a politically motivated entry on Andrea Tantaros to be balanced, yet you reverted it. I next removed the section for the sake of making the article apolitical, and you reverted again. The section regarding comments about Obama's daughters, with a cited reference to Media Matters, is not worthy of the impartial nature of wikipedia.

Consider that Tantaros is a media figure with literally thousands of hours of talk and opinion recorded. Highlighting this issue is not worthy of a balanced article and seems to be biased in the manner you alluded to in your reversion justification. Please cease reverting my proper changes. Dsr70 (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)dsr70

You will have noticed, of course, that the media made a big deal out of the comments by Tantaros. Media attention is a yardstick by which Wikipedia determines whether something is important. You have unilaterally decided that the comment is unimportant, but your opinion does not erase the media attention. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You're reliance on "media attention" is self-serving and self-perpetuating. That is the tool of political operatives. The article need not highlight her prescient, accurate, or favored remarks, nor need it highlight her opposed remarks. At best you're naive, at worst biased. I will move this up the chain until you cease and desist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsr70 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

By "cease and desist", do you mean you will take legal action? If so, you will be blocked via WP:No legal threats. So make sure you are clear about your goal. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried to edit the paragraph to remove the subjective language inherent. Specifically, the comment that she confused the two drugs mentioned. That is not objective fact, and isn't germane to her point, as I tried to point out. If the paragraph is to stay, it needs to remove such subjective siding with her critics, or present counter references and arguments. And if it does contain counter references and articles, then it proves my further point that such political arguing does not belong in a wiki entry. Media Matters is decidedly not objective and if included needs balance, for their method of operation is to raise hackles to generate attention to tag opponents in the future. No different than run of the mill political operations. You have both reverted my attempts to edit for balance and the deletion of entirely. Something has to give. Cease and desist is a term of art. You are allowing bias in the article and I am telling you to stop. Dsr70 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Media Matters website's About page... "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." This is not a group to be used as objective purveyors of what is controversial. They have an agenda which should not and need not be in the neutral wikipedia we all are striving for. http://mediamatters.org/about Dsr70 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Matters holds an opinion, certainly, but Wikipedia does not require sources to be neutral, which is impossible anyway. For an activist group such as Media Matters, the appropriate guideline is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which says that attribution should be given to conclusions that are made by one group. You'll see that Media Matters is appropriately attributed to the statement, and it has been for quite some time now. I don't see anything wrong with including the paragraph in the Tantaros biography. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Bink, you're failing to understand this: Media Matters does not determine what is controversial. Media pundits says thousands of things a year. Controversy is not determined by opponents. I'm sorry, but it appears you have an agenda. I will edit the article until we find an acceptable middle in good faith. Dsr70 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The balanced paragraph is up. As you'll see, to put the "controversy" in proper perspective requires politically tinged arguments on both sides. Such minutia and nuance don't belong here. But if the paragraph is to remain, context must be shown. Dsr70 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You have violated WP:SYNTH by bringing in something unrelated to Tantaros's comment, something she did not make reference to. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not seeing the synth violation. Be specific. Keep in mind that the Media Matters citations contain arguments of a subjective political nature that have no place here. To wit, citation 16 says about Tantaros (http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/05/how-to-talk-about-malia-obamas-birth-control.html) "...and it’s vile to speculate about a minor’s [birth control]." This is the driving reason this critical paragraph is in the bio! The context that Obama himself invoked his daughters birth control and that Tantaros justified her remarks on that basis is relevant since the original text (since edited out) criticized her for violating some uncited promise to refrain from such. The Media Matters criticism absent these two facts would possibly be legitimate, but are illegitimate as is. Nonetheless, you are not, nor is this paragraph, justifying why, after presumably thousands of hours of commentary, this issue is in a _biography_ entry. It simply doesn't belong, even when balanced as I have edited it. Tell me exactly why this one issue is here? If she was a CEO trying to avoid controversy, then maybe so. But she is a commentator who makes controversial remarks presumably thousands of times a year. Why not her controversial remarks about Obamacare? Or Syria? Or the First Lady's lunch program? None of them belong. This has to be obvious blink. Dsr70 (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The synthesis is you trying to tie something else into Tantaros's statement. The context was not established by Tantaros, so you are filling in the gap. Your infill is synthesis, and will be removed.

It makes no difference whether our sources are biased; Wikipedia does not require unbiased sources. The source is attributed, which satisfies WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

Your repetition of thousands of hours of commentary is beneath my concern. The media picked out some of Tantaros's comments, which is why these media-selected comments are in the biography. The comments that were ignored by the media are unimportant to the biography. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The "media" in this case is a political opponent. Media Matters is not the arbiter of what is controversial. As well, you aren't making a case. You're simply typing your opinion. I am citing and tying in. What is the infill exactly? What is the gap? The comments, context, qualification, and citations are there to see. Your bias reeks. Dsr70 (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. Take your concern to higher authority. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I will indeed go higher and expect you to refrain from further edits of this article. Dsr70 (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

While she might have strong political opinions, some of these opinions cross the line into bigotry and must be exposed. A bullet to the head of members of an entire religion is not a strong political opinion. You are not doing objective editing, but protecting bigots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.241.102.67 (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Comfort Women

Hi, Bink. Thanks for your kindness the other day. You know, I am very perplexed, and can't quite get over the fact that you edited that article. I desire an amendment, then, ask for your kind understanding in this matter. If necessary, I would make corrections, then, I will make a concerted attempt to rehab the problematic places. There are the following two reasons. May I have your comments on this?

The first thing, "Kono Statement" means not merely the Government's official view, but defines a more specific definition of "Comfort women." That historic document is always quoted when the "Comfort women" Issue is discussed. It is supported by an overwhelming majority, including everything from conservatives (but superficially), to the Communist party, and even the South Korean Government. A few opponents, our compatriots, show their disapproval of the quotation from the statement, not because the quotation is too long but because they deny the statement. It seems to me that the birthplace stats is redundancy to the abstract of the statement. I compromised, hence, made a significant summary. They gave a silent assent, although you eliminated the summary completely out of the clear sky. It is beyond my comprehension.

In the second place, "Comfort women" and "Teishintai" (挺身隊) are completely different. In "Comfort women" issue, Asahi-shimbun, a major newspaper, has been a traditional leader over the years. Asahi has made a denial of correct false reports since 1982. They are major contributor to misinterpretation. Asahi verified their articles that they confuse "Comfort women" with "Teishintai." Thereby Asahi admitted two entirely separate problems. It caused a scandalous big fuss. That incident was greatly reported about in the news. Therefore, it was "four" authorities that I quoted "Zenkokushi" and the NHK, correspond to The Times, The Independent, The Guardian, and the BBC in UK. Whereas I am at a loss to understand you made the deletion without warning, but it must be well-founded. I would imagine that, "Terribly off-topic" is not sufficient reasons for a well-substantiated and an uncolored description has been deleted. Just a reminder, I am NOT a revisionist. That separation is the prevailing orthodoxy in Japan, such as former the Asian Women's Fund neutrality. Yoshimi, the most severely critical historian, says "there is not forced mobilization of the 'Comfort women' by the Government, however, responsibility of the Government regarding this issue exists." Asahi is a revisionist? NO. AWF is a revisionist? NO. Then, Yoshimi is a revisionist? Totally NO.

Thank you for sparing your precious time for me.--まとりょーしか (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Bink. Unfortunately, I still don't have a reply. My idea, and please correct me if it's wrong, is that I understand that I get your consent. If something is incorrect or if you have any question, please let me know.--まとりょーしか (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In this removal I made, the text was not clear. The text said that Asahi Shimbun has admitted its mistakes, but it did not say which mistakes. It said that Asahi Shimbun "retracted the contents", but it was not specific in describing what contents were retracted.

A big problem with Yoshida is that he mixed truth with fiction. If someone proves he was wrong on one or more points, then that sense of being wrong is carried over to the things which remain true. Yoshida is thus used as a tool by people who want to say that comfort women were not coerced, that they were primarily voluntary prostitutes. We need to be very, very clear about what parts of Yoshida are "retracted". Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive

Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hearing Range

Hi Binksternet,

I just added a more detailed description of my concerns regarding the Kunchur papers to the Talk section. I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, but it strikes me as rather absurd that these questionable papers have been referenced here.

Regards, Raimund — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:41:E08:5549:40B4:7B97:5691:1647 (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Wrap-up of some recent external reviews Interview: World War I editors Op-ed: TomStar81 on the outbreak of World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The "Napoléon" restorations

Thanks for the "thanks". It seems you may be the very person destiny is calling to the Kevin Brownlow article, where an hour or two ago I encountered a brief but nastily tangled summary of l'affaire Napoléon. Were the two different scores, one by Davis and one by Coppola, in fact both composed in 1980 as the main Napoléon article's infobox states? My comments, written before I noticed that, are on the Brownlow article's talk page (deposited there before I logged in — forgive, forgive!) and commend the actual surgery to someone more familiar with the details, such as ... maybe ... YOU? AVarchaeologist (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

To answer the direct question: The Davis and Coppola scores were written almost concurrently, with Coppola starting first and finishing first, though he took notes from Davis's research.

I have not done much with the Brownlow biography, which I admit with chagrin, but I am certainly the person who took the Napoléon film article in hand to make it worthy of the encyclopedia. I have a copy of the somewhat rare Brownlow book about the making of the French film, especially the arduous process of its restoration, and I have a few other odd sources. I expanded the film article 5× such that it met the requirements for "Did you know?" on the Main page.

I was puzzled by the post from the anonymous person from San Jose, and I did not respond or react at the Brownlow talk page. Now that you bring my attention to the problem, I promise I will look at it more closely and see what might be done to clarify. Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Opeth

Hi, I have no problem with the changes you have made and i am just here to say I didn't revert you at first because I disagreed as such but wanted to keep the articles consistent, now you have changed all of the albums pages they are, kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at I need 3.14's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I need 3.14 (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC) (p.s. I really am not an advanced wiki editor, my dad showed me the talkback feature....)

Hey

I suggest you head back to Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism; your support is being invoked for edits you've opposed (additionally you may have something to say about the uncommented addition of false/unsourced information, etc.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Edumacater

Seeing as your warnings have been ignored, I've brought up User:Edumacater's behaviour at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Gorillaz

I see you pegged User: Hemispheres2112; I got 86.158.110.9 as well. I'm too busy and too tired to deal with SPI at this point, but something needs to be done. Cheers. Radiopathy •talk• 00:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

But Seriously

I have just reverted a destructive edit you had already reverted on ...But Seriously by 201.238.242.186. The second time exactly the same edit was made by 190.96.40.50, leading me to think this may be the same user but using different identities. Rodericksilly (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sneaky little devil! I just tagged him as part of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Date-changing vandal from Santiago. Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas A-26 Invader

Time to head off an edit/revert war. See: [8] FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

HI!

Hey, Binkersnet!

Sorry about what I have done last time.

I will try to contribute well with WIKIPEDIA.

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay! I just cleaned up the New Order talk page where you made the same comment three times. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Successful FA

Binksternet, I'd like to thank you for your input last month in helping improve the Katy Perry article- she just became FA. I know you had concerns about maintaining the gold star, but nevertheless wanted to say that this wouldn't have been possible without the help you gave. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome! Congratulations. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing Genres

I've been noticing lately that you've been removing the genres out of the infoboxes for several songs such as I Can't Tell You Why and Glory Box because there was no support for them. What does this exactly mean? If you mean to cite them, that doesn't really make sense since genre isn't something you reference and I haven't seen citations put in infoboxes before.Adam the silly (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

When I have said "no support for genre" in my edit summary, I mean that WP:V was not satisfied, that the genre was not verifiable through normal means such as looking at the article text for confirmation, looking at the charting success of the song, reading the cited sources, etc.

Your assertion that "genre isn't something you reference" is a statement that goes against WP:V. Wikipedia's verifiability requirement is not something that can be dismissed. Every single thing in an article should be verifiable. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Josh Homme, Ben Shepherd

Hi, so we had a little disagreement over the genre's related to Josh Homme. You felt I guess he is only a stoner rock, heavy metal, or hard rock artist, and not alternative rock, garage rock, grunge, robot rock, or desert rock. I will give you robot rock, as this is a term coined by Homme himself describing queens of the stone age and is not an actual defined genre at this point, but I don't feel any of those other terms are out of bounds as defined as fields in which Homme has performed under. For instance, the Screaming Trees are classified often as a grunge band, Homme was a member from 1996 to 2000. He was a frequent collaborator with Wellwater Conspiracy, who classified as a Garage Rock revival band. He comes from the Palm Desert Scene, who classify themselves as desert rock, though often confused with the stoner rock term, Homme prefers the former.

Now, I don't pretend to know anything about everything, but I do know a lot about a little and I'm assuming your deletion of the entire gear section of Ben Shepherd's page seemed more than a little unwarranted and some form of retaliation. I don't want this. Let's not start a war. As you can tell, none of my post are vulgar of defaming, rather increments of specific information, mostly gear, all of which I can back up, but would take forever and more than likely at this point lead to dead links. I'll leave the Homme genre post alone, even though you can't really argue those points, but lets not be dicks. I've put the Ben Shepherd post back. I can't really defend myself on here, I'm not some Wiki hero, just a guy that knows a lot of specific information about a couple of musicians. Again let's not be dicks about this. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.156.15.207 (talk • contribs)

Your knowledge is good and should be shared with the world, but Wikipedia is only supposed to be for previously published material, not a forum for your first publication. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you've deleted the Shepherd gear again. Well fine, I'll try my hardest to source it. It'll be hard to cite every bass the guy played, but I'm working on it. Probably going to be a lot of fuzzy pictures. Sorry, I'm a bit of an amateur on here, but I was just trying to be helpful. I was a tech for the guy a while in the 90's by the way, can't prove it, but you'll have to take my word that all that stuff is true. That's where the Josh Homme connection comes in as well, those guys toured together in 95 in Europe and then again in 96 on Lollaplooza when I was with them. Anyway, sorry.

Just a friendly reminder

Hello, me again, it has been nearly a week since your reply to my last statement Song 2's talk page. I would very much appreciate if you could take the time to reply on the post-grunge issue. Thanks. 2601:8:9800:64C:129A:DDFF:FEAA:BDF6 (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sojourner Truth edits

As you could tell, I'm new to this. There are a few errors in fact in the Sojourner Truth article. It appears that you removed my corrections that helped the article be more accurate when you, justifiably, didn't allow my addition of a fact without reference. So, if I provide the proper reference in the wikipedia format will you allow my other changes? Steve Strimer 1 (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What is your reference? I am interested in the topic. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Uruguayan tango

If you can prove that Carlos Gardel is not a naturalized Uruguayan then show it. Otherwise, your deletion is unfunded and amounts to vandalism. I understand that you believe that the singer was "the essence of Buenos Aires" but, that does not make him less naturalized Uruguayan. By the way, he was a very important and active tango figure in Uruguay too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.147.183 (talk • contribs)

Your source is a perfectly good source; unfortunately it says the opposite of what you are putting into the encyclopedia. It says Gardel was a French-Argentine who applied for Uruguayan citizenship in 1920, after he became famous. Gardel never had significant ties to Uruguay beyond this falsification of papers. Your work fails verification, per WP:V. It cannot stand. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You just confirmed it: Carlos Gardel obtained "Uruguayan citizenship when he was in his late 20s". There is no indication that his papers are falsified (prove it). As you said, my source "is a perfectly good source". You seem to try to impose your impassioned unwarranted deletion from Wikipedia by calling my contribution "vandalism' but, vandalism is exactly what you are doing. 98.217.147.183 (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, dude. You are wrong in trying to tell the reader that Gardel was French-Uruguayan rather than the truth which is that he was French-born Argentine. Stop trying to erase the very important Argentine influence, the country where Gardel was raised, where he became famous. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Gardel became naturalized Uruguayan in 1920 and later, in 1923, obtained dual citizenship (allowed by both Uruguay and Argentina) by obtaining his Argentinian citizenship. By recognizing these facts, one does not erase the very important Argentine influence, nor mislead the reader in any way on where he became famous. One should also recognize that Gardel became extremely famous in Uruguay, which justifies adding him to the list, even though he was not raised there. Therefore, he should be on both countries lists of tango musicians.98.217.147.183 (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Your edit was an attempt to erase the fact of Gardel's very close association with Argentina, and his very distant relationship with Uruguay. You removed the text saying Gardel "is most closely associated with Argentina where he grew up and became famous", and you removed the text saying "Gardel never lived in Uruguay." Thus, you are trying to tell falsehoods to the reader, by giving only the very partial truth that he was a "naturalized Uruguayan of French origin". You are violating the WP:NPOV guideline by misrepresenting the source, and by deleting other sources which supply the mainstream viewpoint. This is not an argument you will win. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is about Uruguayan Tango. The biography of Gardel does not belong there. You can add such digression in Gardel's article, within his biography, but not within the list of musicians in this article. And by the way, I'm not trying to win anything here nor engaged in any war you accuse me of (and like you seem to be). I'm just adding relevant and verifiable information, and removing out-of-place and irrelevant information. Thank you.98.217.147.183 (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting Gardel as Uruguayan. It's wrong. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Loss Free Resistors

Hello,

I see that you removed my entry on loss-free resistors but I don't understand why.

You wrote a comment that it is a side issue, though the entry includes references to well cited papers that show real applications and implementations of this. In addition, Loss Free Resistors are taught at universities world-wide and are discussed at length at the standard textbook on the subject, which is also cited.

It seems to me that this is a valid encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia, and shouldn't be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.245.117 (talk • contribs)

The subtopic of LFR is too synthetic to be described in the larger topic of resistors. There is no practical application. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I did a web search and LFR is pretty interesting though they don't have much resemblance to actual resistors. It seems reasonable to write a separate article about the topic, unless we already have something comparable. The regular resistor article could then have a brief mention and a wikilink. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If there is any practical usage then the new article on LFRs can be mentioned at the resistor article. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Rihannathebestlikeher

He/she did disrupting editing again (including unreliable sources; though I reverted it). Can you report him/her? 115.164.223.191 (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ad rock thang

how in the heck is Molly Ringwald dating Ad Rock controversial — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckT187 (talk • contribs)

Pope John Paul II (miniseries)

Will Part 1 paragraph 1 add the holding of Nowa Huta's first Mass on Christmas Eve, 1959 in what was completed as a "town without God" without a church, either as part of the sentence where he becomes Krakow's auxillary bishop in 1958 or as a separate sentence itself ? Part 2's paragraph 2 reference to him asking forgiveness should say "In 2000, he starts the third millennium in Israel..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Examplar (talk • contribs)

Dude, this is an encyclopedia. The article about the miniseries should not be a replacement biography of the pope whose life is depicted. Instead, the article about the miniseries should be about its production, distribution, reception and legacy. So stop worrying about the synopsis of the miniseries and concentrate instead on the other elements. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And find at least one reference for the article! Binksternet (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi Blinks. I understand your reasoning about changing my edit to And Justice for All. Thank you for the good work and all the work you've done for a great band. Kingslove2013 (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the thank you! Best wishes...

Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edits/reverts on the Iran-page

Hi. You reverted an edit on the establishment of Iran, claiming that the country of Iran has a longer history than what was edited. And you re-inserted the old information on the Persian Empire.

I am not here out of frustration or anger, but let me tell you, that we are having a lot of trouble across several pages, with an (unexplained) equalling of Iran and the Persian Empire(s) and several page-moves and edits are the planning. I would really appreciate you inputs on this topic. Was you reverting the Iran-page without thinking and just to hinder a change to the (supposedly) original text? Or do you have some serious refs on why Iran has been equalled to the Persian Empire? Now, I am not an expert on the details of the history of this part of the world, but I dont think Iran is a very old nation and name for that matter? Am I wrong? Why?

RhinoMind (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion should be taking place on the article talk page, Talk:Iran. Many more editors will be interested in weighing in. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah agreed. But I have already tried to start a discussion there, but nobody takes part in it. I hope you (and others) perhaps will engage there? If you dont explain yourself anywhere, you risk that your reverts will be ignored in the near future and perhaps even seen as edit warring. I dont want that, but it can happen if no one engage in some explaining. RhinoMind (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

84.236.225.130

Blocked 3 months - could you check the latest edits Special:Contributions/84.236.225.130 - there's half a dozen or so still current. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the block! I will check more closely the remaining edits. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The remaining diffs are all removals of uncited genres, which I cannot get too worked up about. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Eminem video?

I have absolutely no idea how I ended up linking an Eminem video. The link was supposed to be to Hitler's Warriors documentary by Guido Knopp from 1998. Anyways, cheers. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Good reference

I have found this page effective in filing "speedy deletes" over at Commons for these reappearing images. No need to fight it in DN, when it's clearly copyvio. Hugs! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Perfect! The deletes will come faster with that link.

Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

My edits

Listen to me sir, I try not to vandalize articles! And I don't even think I do. I think I actually do a pretty good job when I edit. Alliedarko1217 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not calling you a vandal, I'm saying that some of your edits are problematic, that you are shooting from the hip rather than looking at reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I understand where you're coming from now but I don't really know what a "reliable source" is. Alliedarko1217 (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Start at WP:Reliable sources. In the context of music genres, the Music Wikiproject has settled on a practice of using only prose descriptions in reviews rather than "sidebar" lists of genres as you might see in Allmusic off to the left. So if you want to add "progressive folk" or "glam folk" to the Béla Fleck and the Flecktones article, you need to see these genres used to describe the band in a review, preferably several reviews. Looking at an Allmusic review by Thom Jurek, you can see he says that Béla Fleck and the Flecktones demonstrate a "seamless, unclassifiable meld of jazz, progressive bluegrass, rock, classical, funk, and world music traditions" on the album Rocket Science. Off to the left in the sidebar are genres and styles that we have not been using: "Country, Jazz, Bluegrass, Modern Creative, Progressive Bluegrass." So the prose part supports genres for the album which include jazz, progressive bluegrass, rock, classical, funk and world, but not "modern creative" as in the sidebar.

If you think to yourself that a song, album or band has a certain genre, you can search online to see whether there are reliable sources which agree with your assessment, and put those in the article. You would look for newspaper and magazine reviews, established websites which publish a review, and books about music. Here is a Google search for one of the terms you wanted, and it shows no support for "glam" in regard to the band Béla Fleck and the Flecktones. You could repeat the search with other words. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Alliedarko1217 (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Colombian genre warrior

I don't know if there is an LTA case, but now it seems like there should be. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I will keep looking for more IPs. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Drug testing gender inequality is a big issue to the NIH right now and against the law yet few know it. Raise awareness.

When the government legally defines it as sexism it's probably OK for wikipedia to say it's sexism, NPOV does not stand for No Point of View. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's the flavor-of-the-day issue for some, and a non-issue for others. By far most tests have the same results when performed on male vs female test subjects. Binksternet (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bink. I hope you are well as the summer winds down. This thread was started by long term drawer full of socks creator User:CensoredScribe. Feel free to remove it or leave it as you wish. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 12:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping somebody would spot this guy's sockmaster as it was obvious he was returning to disruption. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

...And Justice for All

Hey Bink, according to the review, the lead shouldn't introduce exclusive information. Thus I suggested the section to have the full description of the cover art, rather than a few words only.--Retrohead (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead section should be a summary of the article body, per WP:LEAD. The same exact text should not repeat, not even a close paraphrase of unusual words. If there is too much repetition between the lead section and the article body then the reading flow is not FA level.

What you want to do is put the detail in the article body, and keep only a summary in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my point. The large description should go in the article's body, the summary in the lead, not the other way round.--Retrohead (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Black Sabbath

I've got it semi-protected. I haven't reverted again because I'm concerned I might be seen as edit-warring. I'm over 3RR already. I consider the IP's edits as vandalism but an admin may not agree, so it might be better if you revert it. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

A curious incident

I just ran across this by accident, and knowing your penchant for SPIs I thought I'd notify you in case you wanted to create a case. There are three posters on this AfD who look like pretty obvious sockpuppets of each other. They all three create their signatures within parentheses, like so: (~~~~); they all three have similar histories; they all three use similar rhetoric, and all three of them have run afoul, to varying degrees, of Dougweller. ETA: I just noticed there are two more of them on this AfD (the socks tend to vote on the same AfDs). They all also seem a bit spelling or typing challenged. Those are all the hints I'll give you. The rest is up to you, Sherlock, should you take an interest. Cheers! Softlavender (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Intriguing! This will be an interesting case. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You, Location and Dougweller will likely be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Electromechanic, which is the Starman005 and Boss Reality sockpuppet case I put together, named for the first account I could find. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you have made an excellent case, counselor. One thought: I think you're supposed to place and link the suspected sockmaster at the top, right? I don't know that you need my comments, but I will support your request of Check User. BTW, WegianWarrior seems to be a repeat player (along with Dougweller) in the AfDs (opposing the socks), so he may want to comment; that wasn't a ping so if you want him to possibly chime in you'd need to ping or notify him. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I just let the templates create the usual sections, so I don't know why Electromechanic was not shown at the top with user links. I have added it in. Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I just got a popup on my page when signing o about being mentioned. Isn't it curious that I'm now getting this accusation thrown at me by way of inclusion with these here and it's curious that some of that list were the very ones that supported me . No it's not! First I'm accused of working for Dr Rima Laibow, then being a fan of hers then working for Scott Tips and / or The Natural Solutions Foundation. What next ? BTW: There's 4 accusations I could throw right now but I'm not going to do that. I could even make compalints about the censorship and vandalism of my articles but have not. It isn't my mission! This is all seriously becoming an amazingly annoying joke. What next ? (Boss Reality (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC))

Next is you will be blocked, being that the Starman005 and George-Archer accounts absolutely prove sockpuppetry, and the accounts Joecreation, Brother Samson, Boss Reality and Canned Heat Returns were judged "technically Likely" to be connected to these. That means all of your accounts will be blocked, and you will have to choose one with which to appeal your case, promising never again to use multiple accounts on the same articles and discussions, to make it seem as if more people agree. Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

These are not my puppets and contrats for using the famous "discredit the opposition" "when all else" fails technique. I don't work for any organisations as per the previous childish and clumsy veiled accusations that I've had to endure.
If I really wanted to, I could let loose with some of the things I've seen here but I haven't. It seems that ignoring the obvious is in play. I see what the agenda is here. I have never been forgiven for creating the article of the B.A. Brooks film Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill and then the Dr Rima Laibow article. That one was blatantly and deliberately destroyed with what I firmly believe is agenda-driven censorship. Looking back now I realise that the creation of the Scott Tips article was a bad move. Three articles in a row about controversial people / subject has angered some people here and sent their blood pressure up. The Laibow and Tips articles were about highly notable people. Tragically they are people who are controversial and challenge the big-pharma and GM industries. I've also proven that I'm not a single purpose editor and yet, I still have to put up with nonsense. You and I both know (If you want to be honest with yourself) that certain articles are not allowed here on this site. Look at what Wikipedia has become. Have a good long look and then have a deep think about what I have said here. (Boss Reality (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC))

I'm not worried about articles that are about controversy. I would not delete them if they were notable. Take a look at the article black genocide (which I created) for an example of a very controversial article that nobody is considering for deletion.

Regarding your socks, I am just telling you what I expect will happen, based on past experience. You and all the "likely" accounts are going to be blocked indefinitely, and if you want to edit Wikipedia again on the up-and-up you will have to select one of the accounts, admit that you have abused multiple accounts, and promise not to do it again. If you hold the stance that you have never abused multiple accounts then you will be forever blocked, because checkuser evidence says otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I see it's a waste of time telling you these aren't my sock or puppets. For second time,hey're not and I'm done with talking to a ????? I have now worked out your angle. That's why it's a waste of time trying to reason with you. I've been discredited at different angles and this is yet another. It would be easy to deal with you if you were just being silly so I'm giving up on any kind of attempt at reason. And yes I saw the Black Genocide article you created. I see it beginning with In the United States, black genocide is a conspiracy theory. Well done! You're now in control of it. Have a nice time in your life. (Boss Reality (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC))

Thanks for the ping, Binksternet. I've been out of town, so I apologize for the delay in responding. I mentioned the signature anomaly to Dougweller a few weeks ago in User_talk:Dougweller/Archive_34#Socks, but I wasn't sure what to make of it. Kudos to Softlavender for digging a little deeper. - Location (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, nice work putting the case together! - Location (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. I like the sleuthing challenge, but I don't like it when a productive editor is blocked for failing to follow Wikipedia's rules. Still, the rules must be applied evenly to all editors. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)