Misplaced Pages

User talk:Binksternet: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:20, 17 February 2019 editInstaurare (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,412 edits →Instaurare/NYyankees51← Previous edit Revision as of 07:50, 17 February 2019 edit undoBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers495,711 edits →Instaurare/NYyankees51: political activistNext edit →
Line 226: Line 226:
:::How about because your edits are not neutral? That would be the first indication that there's an underlying problem, such as someone carrying a political activist agenda. ] (]) 07:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC) :::How about because your edits are not neutral? That would be the first indication that there's an underlying problem, such as someone carrying a political activist agenda. ] (]) 07:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
::::Which edits exactly are not neutral? Show me some of mine, and I'll show you some non-neutral edits of yours if you want. Do you object to where I added an extensively sourced section on the group's position on Trump? Or that you reverted through ] where I removed redundancies, rephrased some overly-wordy sentences and streamlined the lede? I have not consistently edited Misplaced Pages for years, I come back and you're right back to ]. ] (]) 07:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC) ::::Which edits exactly are not neutral? Show me some of mine, and I'll show you some non-neutral edits of yours if you want. Do you object to where I added an extensively sourced section on the group's position on Trump? Or that you reverted through ] where I removed redundancies, rephrased some overly-wordy sentences and streamlined the lede? I have not consistently edited Misplaced Pages for years, I come back and you're right back to ]. ] (]) 07:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::There's a difference between HOUNDING a good faith editor and checking the edit history of an editor who appears to be making problematic changes. The latter is an action I engage in all the time here, almost every day. In checking on your changes, I found that you characterized defrocked priest , which is in keeping with your political activist stance of making progressives and liberals look as bad as possible, while making conservatives and reactionaries look as good as possible. the timing of a politician switching from Democrat to Republican. You made two non-neutral removals of negative information from a conservative politician's biography, claiming BLP protection. Yet you cited the unreliable Fox News to say that a more liberal politician had angered conservatives, which shows that your BLP concerns are instead politically motivated changes. There's a ton more of this stuff... You should be topic banned from American politics from 1970 to the present. ] (]) 07:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:50, 17 February 2019


    Binksternet     Articles created     Significant contributor     Images     Did you know


    Awards
Binksternet Articles created Significant contributor Images Did you know Awards
Archiving icon
Archives

Hearst Castle

Dear Binksternet,

I don’t think our paths have crossed on here. I came to you via your excellent Wyntoon, via an article I’ve worked on, St Donat's Castle. I’ve long thought that Hearst Castle would make a splendid FAC. There would be a great deal of work involved to cover the Personalities, the History, the Architecture including the Casa Grande and the guest cottages, the Landscape, including the gardens and grounds and the wider estate, the Collections...... As it stands, with only twenty-two cites and a bunch of “Citation needed” tags, it’s quite some way off. The main editors, other than yourself, don’t appear to have edited it for about 10 years. I was wondering if you might be interested in a collaboration? This would be a long-term project; I’m currently involved in an FAC and then have another to which I’m committed, so it would be at least April/May, I’d guess, before I was ready to begin in earnest. And, of course, I’ve no idea of your own commitments, on Wiki and off. I do have quite a number of sources, having long been interested in the castle, although I’ve sadly never seen it. I’ve also some experience of collaborative FACs, having found them the most enjoyable and productive way of approaching FA. Anyway, let me know what you think. If it doesn’t appeal, just say. Refusal will in no way offend. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Great idea – worthy project. Every year in May I'm busy like crazy, but I will still be interested in collaborating. I have visited the place three times in three decades, none recently, but it's not critical since we build the article from published works. Do you have a copy of Julia Morgan, Architect of Beauty (2007) or Hearst Ranch, Family, Land, and Legacy (2013)? Those are the most recent works as far as I know. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Excellent! I think it will make a great project. As to time, I'm entirely flexible. If May's no good for you, we can push it later. As I said, the only thing I can't do is pick it up now as I struggle to work on more than one FA at a time. I don't have the Julia Morgan or the latest Kastner, although I do have the latter's earlier two, Hearst Castle: The Biography of a County House, and Hearst's San Simeon: The Gardens and the Land. Ms Kastner is making quite an industry of San Simeon books! I've also got a few guides, Clive Aslet's The American Country House, some scarcer pieces like Ken Murray's The Golden Days of San Simeon and a fair bit on Hearst himself. I'm always happy to add to my collection in support of an FA - I've currently got more books about Sissinghurst sitting on my desk than I shall ever need again. The immediately obvious split for a collaboration would seem to me to be The History and Architecture and Landscape - The House, Gardens and Estate, unless we go so far into the ranch that it becomes unbalanced. That would follow my usual History | Architecture and Description structure and I'd be entirely fine picking up either part. That said, I'm sure there are other ways to split it, and equally happy to consider any other suggestions. I shall begin searching for more sources and we can both mull over the division of labour, and the scale of the task. I suspect it may attract some controversy, both re. Hearst himself and the perennial Hearst/Kane - San Simeon/Xanadu debate, but that should make it lively! I'll be in touch. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Julia Morgan - Architect of Beauty has arrived, and what a beauty of a book it is. KJP1 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hearst Castle collections

Do you know whether anything has been published on the castle's collections? There are some museum quality pieces, his Greek and Etruscan vases for example, but what about the sculpture, the paintings, the books etc.? I think, like St Donat's, many of the best pieces went in the sales of the late 30s/early 40s, but I think we might need a Collections section. It would be good to know if there's much in the way of sources on this. This, , doesn't have that much. KJP1 (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

KJP1, there's one book dedicated to artworks at Hearst Castle, written in 1981 by Carol J. Everingham: The Art of San Simeon: Introduction to the Collection 9780960699605. Copies of this book are held at a few of the UC campuses, Stanford, and several other California universities. Other publications exist which deal with Hearst's larger art collections, but of course those books would touch upon the San Simeon art. In 2008–2009, LACMA put together a Hearst exhibit showing 170 items, calling him "the greatest individual donor to the Los Angeles County Museum."
There's a book titled Navajo Textiles: The William Randolph Hearst Collection 9780816514670 which describes 185 Navajo rugs, serapes, blankets and more, many of which were displayed at San Simeon until Hearst gave the textiles to LACMA in 1942.
Some news articles talk about Hearst Castle in 2009 giving back two paintings that were seized by the Nazis and then bought by Hearst.
In 2011, a painting of the Madonna and Child was borrowed from Hearst Castle and studied by the Getty.
For ten months in 2016–2017, an art collector's tour was offered at Hearst Castle, with tickets set at $100. A local reporter wrote about this tour in the New Times.
In 2017, the Guardian UK estimated that Hearst Castle only shows 10% of Hearst's art.
In March 2018, the mystery was solved regarding who painted the Annunciation hanging in the Assembly Room..
FYI, I milked five more items out of the website in your link by going to the Wayback Machine.
  • Today's list of artworks:
In answer to your earlier question, I would rather work on the background and history of Hearst Castle than write about the current condition. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Super! - Ms Everingham's work is on her way to me, courtesy of Mr Bezos' Marvellous Emporium. More than enough for a section on the collections. And absolutely fine: you have History: Hearst, Morgan, Building the castle, The Roaring 20s/30s, Hearst's farewell and National Historic Landmark. I'll take Architecture and Landscape; the Buildings, Collections, Gardens and the wider Estate. I think that'll be a reasonable split, but obviously we can review as we go. I am greatly looking forward to it. I think my current FA collaboration will wrap up soon. Then I've the abbey I'm committed to. And then we can crack on. But not in May! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
One other thought. It might be worth starting to place relevant material on the article's Talkpage, to save it cluttering up your own. KJP1 (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
And another - we'll need Xanadu in there somewhere. History - Cultural depictions? KJP1 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, last one for tonight. Is that Climate table really adding much? KJP1 (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Ha! Great minds, etc. I was thinking the same thing. It should be shifted to the San Simeon unincorporated community article. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Not sure how this happened... Cheers. Robvanvee 09:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ha! No worries. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

A little Help

Hello Bink, StjJackson submitted unsourced information again, it looks like you are the last person to warn them about this, so i thought i would let you know and ask, how do i report such things? I tried reporting ion the vandalism page but the admin said it was "not vandalism". Untrustedlife (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep an eye on the situation. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Invincible and Bad

Hey Binksternet, would just like to let you know that if you actually go through the Invincible and Bad history, you will realise that the user "PopcornPuff" actually kept editing the articles and took out details that were there before I did anything. So I believe this could be a misunderstanding, that you may assume that I've been the disruptive one. Also can you let me know why you have reverted some edits I have done, such as the Dangerous album. 92.10.210.184 (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion by Special:Contributions/88.111.139.176. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Hey Bink. Would you mind looking here please. Noo Booi seems to think removing Spin mag and replacing with Rate your music as a genre source is acceptable and I don't want to be hit with edit warring on the 3RR rule. Thanks. Robvanvee 14:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Cheers! Robvanvee 17:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note

Drmies (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Fantastic rangeblock. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
We aim to please. When I see you make these edits, with useful summaries, I follow. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

I think we crossed wires there. We'll see if the user returns after being blocked - policy says to block rather than protect when only a single user is attacking. Regards, Samsara 07:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the action. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Trying to correct the entry for Jimmy Smith - Hoochie Cooche Man

Hi. I just picked up this album and noticed the odd spelling of "Cooche" on the cover (not "Coochie", with an "i"). The spelling as "Cooche" is easily verified by looking at discogs, billboard, or allmusic, or indeed, the image of the album cover that's right there in the wikipedia entry. The usual spelling, with an "i", doesn't appear anywhere on the album, not even in the song titles. I've tried a couple of times to correct this but my edits were reverted. Since it looks like you've been involved with this entry, I'm hoping you can ensure the correction is made in a way that it will stay. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CC02:E445:BDE7:56D1:18FF:BBFE (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that the cover and the label spells the word "Cooche". Other sources spell it both ways, for instance AllMusic which writes the song as Coochie while the album is Cooche. Jazz Journal International spells it Coochie, as does the The Complete Library of American Phonograph Recordings. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The album itself - the actual physical thing created and released by Jimmy Smith and Verve records - uses the word "Cooche". There simply is no album in existence by Jimmy Smith named "Hoochie Coochie Man". But since other sources are incorrect, are you suggesting the wikipedia entry should be incorrect as well? I am not trying to win an argument here; I just thought this was pretty cut and dried. I saw a typo and tried to correct it. Every reference listed on the entry for this album confirms the correct spelling. However, if wikipedia is a better place with the typo, so be it. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CC02:E445:C04C:A6CB:1647:DFFA (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you reverted my edits? You haven't given a reason, eventhough if you read the article I improved them. 89.241.108.216 (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019

Full front page of The Bugle Your Military History Newsletter

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) 12:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Someone you know?

. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Drmies, but there's no case page for the person at WP:LTA. I know about this person causing more than three years of disruption to music articles using IPs from the Yucatan, including ones that geolocate to Cancun and Quintana Roo. Some of the IPs I have seen are listed below. A few of them have been blocked, some twice. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry

I see there is an editor who keeps edit warring in the Sophie article recently. If you look at the page history of Big Fish Theory, this editor might be using multiple accounts for disruptive editing. The edit summaries look kinda similar to Crohnichiwa's . TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Certainly the person is pushing their personal agenda, not here to improve the encyclopedia. Let's keep an eye on the situation. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Instaurare/NYyankees51

I see that at Talk:Susan B. Anthony List/Archive 2 there is discussion of Instaurare/NYyankees51's COI with the Susan B. Anthony List. It appears that he worked for them, but do you know where that was declared and do you think the COI remains? Instaurare has made a number of edits to the article today, and I'm wondering whether he should be doing so... Mojoworker (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Mojoworker, the connection was revealed in December 2009 in his sockpuppet case, where it was shown that NYyankees51 had signed a talk page entry which had been posted by 70.21.119.84, an IP address registered to Susan B. Anthony List. NYyankees51 apologized for the slip, saying "Please note that the edits from this IP to the Susan B. Anthony List were made a few months ago before I was aware of Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest guidelines."
Regarding your question about whether NYyankees51/BS24/Instaurare still has a conflict of interest, I don't know what criteria you would be looking for. In my view, a proven conflict of interest is something that lasts for life. This particular conflict of interest will involve anything related to the political action committee Susan B. Anthony List and its interests, which are American politicians and American political issues. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I did some volunteer work for them senior year of high school to bolster my resume for college. Was never paid and have not had any contact with anyone there since then. I've edited the article a bunch of times in the 9 years since and nobody found it necessary to ban me from editing the article, so I don't know why there's a push to do it now. Instaurare (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
How about because your edits are not neutral? That would be the first indication that there's an underlying problem, such as someone carrying a political activist agenda. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Which edits exactly are not neutral? Show me some of mine, and I'll show you some non-neutral edits of yours if you want. Do you object to this one where I added an extensively sourced section on the group's position on Trump? Or this one that you reverted through WP:HOUNDING where I removed redundancies, rephrased some overly-wordy sentences and streamlined the lede? I have not consistently edited Misplaced Pages for years, I come back and you're right back to WP:HOUNDING. Instaurare (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
There's a difference between HOUNDING a good faith editor and checking the edit history of an editor who appears to be making problematic changes. The latter is an action I engage in all the time here, almost every day. In checking on your changes, I found that you characterized defrocked priest Theodore Edgar McCarrick as politically progressive, which is in keeping with your political activist stance of making progressives and liberals look as bad as possible, while making conservatives and reactionaries look as good as possible. Here you removed the timing of a politician switching from Democrat to Republican. You made two non-neutral removals of negative information from a conservative politician's biography, claiming BLP protection. Yet you cited the unreliable Fox News to say that a more liberal politician had angered conservatives, which shows that your BLP concerns are instead politically motivated changes. There's a ton more of this stuff... You should be topic banned from American politics from 1970 to the present. Binksternet (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)