Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:05, 28 December 2012

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

Archives

Archive1 - August 2007 – June 2008, Archive2 - July–November 2008, Archive3 - November 2008 – May 2009, Archive4 - May–July 2009, Archive5 - July–August 2009, Archive6 - September–October 2009, Archive7 - October–December 2009, Archive8 - December 2009 – February 2010, Archive9 - March–April 2010, Archive10 - May–July 2010, Archive11 – July–October 2010, Archive12 – October 2010 – January 2011 Archive13 – January–March 2011 Archive14 – April–July 2011 Archive15 – August–October 2011 Archive16 – November–December 2011 Archive17 – January–February 2012 Archive18 – March–April 2012 Archive19 – May–July 2012 Archive20 – August–October 2012 Archive21 – November–December 2012

Ray of Light and other things....

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

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

Political activities of the Koch brothers: what's next?

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

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

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

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

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

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

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)

|- |

|}

David Irving

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request comment

Your input would be appreciated here. GabeMc 02:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

San Bernardino

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Double-warning?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of best-selling albums

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

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

Mixed metaphor of the day ;-)

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

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

Tube Fender

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

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

Shakira

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

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

XP-39

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

Edit-a-thon tomorrow (Saturday) in Oakland

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

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

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

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

Richard Nixon talk page notice

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

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

Request comment II

Your input would be appreciated here. GabeMc 03:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Bink would this link be good for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

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

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

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

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

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

Schweikart ostracized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3RRon WoW

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

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

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

Should i add this for the Hiroshima industrial values?

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

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

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

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

DYK for Pseudo-documentary

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

United States presidential election, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

Season's tidings!

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

RFC/U for Apteva: move to close

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

• Link to the move to close

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

Best wishes,

Noetica 04:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hypnotico

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

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

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

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

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

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) 09:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas - 2012

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

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

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

I have quit The Beatles project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Xmas

Merry antipodean Xmas

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

Tod

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

So are you going to work on the text soon for the Hiroshima's industrial value?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Augusto Pinochet

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

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

Look who's back:

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't waste too much time arguing with "Little green rosetta". He showed up out of nowhere in August 2012 fully formed as a "new account" and went straight to ANI, AfD, and all the other places that newbies never, ever go. At first I thought it was playing the good hand, bad hand game, and at times I've been reminded of other editors, now gone. But the truth will out itself in time. As of now, the "Little green rosetta" account is tag teaming for Belchfire and a block sock puppet. We'll see how long they can keep this up before one of them slips up. It's only a matter of time before the veneer of civility and neutrality slips again. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)