Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:08, 20 September 2013

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 Archive22 – January–February 2013 Archive23 – March–April 2013 Archive24 – May–June 2013 Archive25 – July–August 2013

A very odd biography

This page came to my attention two ways. First was when it was vandalized, and the vandal left a comment alleging criminal wrongdoing against the subject. The comment was of course, instantly removed. About a week later it came up again through a comment from a neighbor about the real-life issues surrounding its subject, none of which unfortunately have made citable press. So I went to look up Mr. Doss and found that his article was very strange. It looks more like an advertisement for his odd little products than a wiki article. I tried to get the article deleted and found that its page maintainer believes that two short articles about ready-made junk assembled in this guy's barn is enough to keep him on Wiki. I really don't. I've sat and stared at this page. Knowing the gossip that the subject uses the wiki article to establish credibility and to attempt to take advantage of others, I can't leave this without asking for help. There are a pile of other pages on the www about him which are not cited in the wiki article. Please take a look at the links. Search "Doyle Doss Eureka" for more. Thank you for your help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to touch this one, despite the guy being listed in the federal government-operated National Sex Offender Public Registry for two violations against children. That listing is a primary source, so it is not allowed for controversial information about a living person. If it were allowed, it would add to the fame of Doss—the opposite effect you want. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, that I'm not sure his products are notable enough to have a wiki page in the first place. Reading the New York Times article I read that Mr. Doss sent the info to the NYT, which would mean that the article was press-release driven. Wiki is not supposed to be used for self-promotion, I don't think this guy is notable enough to have a page from a "kandle heeter" and a modified motorcycle helmet. I don't want to list his official federal stuff on the page, I am hoping for help getting the page removed for non-notability entirely. Thanks, even if you don't want to do something about it, I wanted to explain better. 17:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ellin, the New York Times does not print just anything. For whatever reason (sales?) they gave the nod to the article about Doss which is partly why he is rewarded with notability on Misplaced Pages. It sucks, but that's how it works. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald

Hi. You might want to take a look at the article. Paavo273 is plastering 'citation needed' tags on stuff that appears very well sourced to me. However, I'm no expert on the matter and since your name showed up in the article's history a lot.... Cheers, Yintan  21:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Zack Norman bio revisited

Hi Binksternet! I know it's been a while, but I just rediscovered this communication with you and wanted to ask again if you would please help me get my article on actor Zack Norman published. It seems as if no matter what I do, no matter how hard I try to address each and every one of the Misplaced Pages editors' notes and comments, there's always something new wrong, or the same old things are causing problems in new ways, or the new corrected version is somehow more egregious than the previous draft! In addition, there still seems to be an issue with Zack Norman's notability, which you yourself affirmed months ago. In any event, could you please put the article up for me, as you offered to do so back at the end of March of this year? That would be wonderful. Thanks again so much! All the best, Matthew Matzohboy (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Matzohboy (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet -- just wondering if you'd had time to give any consideration to my above letter. Please let me know if there's anything you need to know or that I can do etc. Thanks!! Matthew Matzohboy (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Matzohboy, I will take a run through the article and bring it into mainspace with sufficient sourcing. I may cut a lot of it, or add new text—we'll see how it goes. Do you have a photo or two you can upload? Something from a few decades ago and something more recent. At least one of the photos should be able to serve as a portrait. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

Thank you for your message about citations.

What citation would you suggest, when I was reporting my own experience of receiving unsolicited phone calls from them? There must be a way to include descriptions of an organization's behavior that may not have made a citable source. There is more to life than gets put in the papers (and lots of what is in the papers is not quite right).

I do understand the need for citations and reliability, I am a trained scientist. But requiring a citation may be a smokescreen for removing information the organization prefers not to advertise.

Thanks. Adam (Papaloquelites) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papaloquelites (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read the Misplaced Pages policy WP:No original research. Scientists especially are put off by this hard-and-fast requirement which says that no unpublished conclusions, no matter how well researched, may be put into a Misplaced Pages article. Only previously published ones can. You should write or encourage someone to write about the issue in a newspaper or magazine, or hunt down such an article. After it is published in a reliable source, the issue may be mentioned on the Planned Parenthood page. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson talk...

I have the Zen Garden award, two 'Resilient Barn Stars', and an 'Anti-Flame Barnstar' on my user page. I didn't earn them at TJ, but I might as well have. It's not always easy. Just a hint ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Like. ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Disagree with your revert

I saw that you reverted my edit to Ender's Game, and I think that your reasons for doing so were incorrect. Firstly, even if the first paragraph was badly formatted, and I redundantly mentioned the first and second invasions, I feel that the other paragraphs that I edited were substantially better than the old ones. I'd appreciate if you could undo your revert, or at least make it more selective to only encompass the first paragraph of the synopsis. --Kangaroopowah 21:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You are 100% free to take another stab at the article's plot section, especially now that you see what was the earlier problem. Best wishes! Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem? You really haven't explained it. --Kangaroopowah 20:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You got it already: the redundancy was poor composition. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Was only the first paragraph bad? --Kangaroopowah 17:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's as far as I looked. I saw the redundancy and stopped reading, started reverting. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:TFAR nomination of Whaam!

Given your active participation in the first of two recent WP:FACs that resulted in the recent WP:FA promotion of Whaam!, I am informing you of a discussion that you may want to take part in at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests#Whaam.21.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		Thank you for your attention to the Whaam! WP:FAC discussion. Neutral eyes were important in this promotion.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moswento -- Moswento (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Opinion request

Hi there Binksternet, I am requesting outside opinion for the Asaram Bapu article. The talk page section in question is "Edit warring on the "potency test". I have read Misplaced Pages:Canvassing to be certain that I am within WP policy guidelines, and it is my understanding that my request is not considered canvassing, but if I'm wrong just let me know. I left the following edit on the article talk page:

I believe that the arguments offered here have not shown reasonable rational for inclusion of a few early reports that stated that the girl's hymen was intact, while refusing to allow very widely reported information regarding the fact that, contrary to to a statement that he was impotent, a test has confirmed his potency. Since it appears that the editors here believe that they have offered adequate argument and are reverting any attempts to add any mention of the potency test, I wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same or closely related topics. User:Binksternet has done a lot of work with women's issues, User:MastCell has medical-related knowledge, and User:Roscelese has worked on rape-related articles. I will place an invitation to comment on their talk pages. Of course, other editors are welcome to ask for other opinions as well.

Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Setback

The article originally contained mostly information of setback on skyscrapers / metropolitan areas which is not where people are mostly affected. If you feel some comments to be NPOV, I have revised that as this was not my intension. Setbacks in rural areas are mostly set by the jurisdiction without owners consent and need in mind. Furthermore it must be noted that there are more exceptions to static setbacks and that criticism arises from drawback of wasted space. It is also noted that other countries respect mutual agreement between people whereas most jurisdictions in the US don't allow such agreements when it comes to setbacks. It is my understanding that jurisdictions should use their given powers with sense of proportion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VillaGorilla (talk • contribs) 18:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design

The article Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moswento -- Moswento (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the National Right to Life Committee

Wouldn't a note section be more appropriate than a footnote? I can attempt that but you seem more skilled at editing so have a go if you want to do so. Thanks 172.56.10.73 (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC) I did make a footnote section but I just noticed a post of yours which I placed below. I have made good faith edits and have no control over my IP changing (it just changed today). Roscolese stalked my edits and changed all my edits made yesterday and made accusations on my talk page related to abortion issues. Roscelese clearly is agenda driven and did in fact edit stalk my posts and edit warred on them. Do not feed her please. Thanks again.

Discretionary sanctions on all abortion topics

I am taking this opportunity to tell you that Misplaced Pages has enabled administrators to make discretionary sanctions against any editor who appears to be acting against the purposes of Misplaced Pages. An editor who is adding biased text or who is promoting a cause may be blocked. Your actions at National Pro-Life Religious Council include the repeated addition of text without bringing the issue up at the talk page, an extension of your other IP address Special:Contributions/208.54.40.220. Make certain you are able to win consensus on the talk page if your text is reverted. Using multiple IP addresses is not a protection from the rules against edit warring. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

New Concern

I noticed you reverted another edit to Concerned Women for America that Roscoelese stalked. You undid POV based revert performed by Roscoelese as I mentioned above. You state your reason as: 03:17, 14 September 2013‎ Binksternet (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,159 bytes) (-566)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 572760445 by Roscelese: Revert POV changes. (TW)) (undo) How is breaking the article into logical sections POV, or quoting the founder of the movement and paraphrasing the long existing sources comments POV. The source is even in opposition to the organization. The founder's quote as to why she started the organization is entirely relevant and even essential. How can that be POV pushing? Taking the founder's quote out would demonstrate poor judgment and some other possible concerns. I will assume good faith and ask you to have a better look at the full revert you made. I see some history with Roscoelese that does cause me some concern but I look forward to working with you in a non-adversarial manner. Please have a better look so as to improve the article which I believe my edit achieved. I believe reverts are often misused for many reasons. It takes much more effort to improve an article than to injure an article. Please respect other editors efforts that meet the Wiki guidelines and correct the area you have an issue with and avoid frequent use of reverts whenever possible. It is my belief the vast majority of editors have something to add. Correct the errors you have documentation to prove. Because you do not like IP's that is no reason to use less discretion and discernment if that is the case. I am unsure why you reverted the whole thing based on your vague reason. So I would also ask you to be more specific especially when reverting so it does not appear suspicious. Thanks for looking into this matter and considering my concerns. 172.56.10.73 (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nobody likes dynamic IPs, as they make it difficult to communicate with the user. As an alternative to pointing out on your (momentary) talkpage that you use different IP's, have you considered creating an account, so you can more easily take ownership of your editing? As for your "possible concerns" and "suspicions", they constitute a passive-aggressive attack, however much you talk of assuming good faith, so you might want to consider retracting them. Binksternet's revert was correct and his edit summary quite adequate. Bishonen | talk 09:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC).

Please Do Not Add Frivolous Accusations to My Talk Page

Adding to an article that I was working on before is not reverting. Please look up revert for a clear definition. I will still assume good faith but my concern of other intentions has grown. Please remember false accusations can result in adverse action towards the accuser.

What do you think of this?

What are your thoughts on this closure? GabeMc 19:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that was a poorly considered interference in the the normal process of consensus based on a mistaken assumption that the ArbCom case already covered the question. The closure stinks. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bink. Perhaps you would consider weighing-in at the ongoing closure discussion. GabeMc 00:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:IMOS

Please dont give warnings to other editors when you misunderstand guidelines. This is disruptive.

• Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context
• An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating to states, politics or governance) where "Ireland" should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the "island of Ireland"
• Per the Linking guideline of the Manual of Style, the names of major geographic features and locations should not be linked. If it is thought necessary to link, in order to establish context or for any other reason, the name of the state should be pipelinked as Ireland

I left an appropriate note on the editors talkpage, when his edits didnt follow these, I am leave a note on your talkpage when your edits havent followed these. The first point, second point and third point above all apply against your edits. If you can show what guidelines support your edits I would be happy to self-revert. Murry1975 (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding "this article is about one legal jurisdiction, not multiple", please again read the guidelines and understand ther is only one legal jurisdiction and state called Ireland- thats its full, long short, formal and commonname. Please dont confuse an article title with what the subject of the article is called. Murry1975 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you are referring to in IMOS. Thanks for pulling the appropriate quotes out for me.

There is one little issue regarding MOS:BOLDTITLE, though. The guideline says "links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead" but the following articles violate this directive:

• Education in the Republic of Ireland
• Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland
• Local government in the Republic of Ireland and
• Abortion in the Republic of Ireland. These instances of a wikilinked/piped linked "Ireland" ought to be unlinked to comply with BOLDTITLE. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

All four now conforming to WP:MOSBOLDTITLE as pointed out. Cheers for the help. Murry1975 (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill  16:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Your revert earlier this year of reasonably useful-looking content supplied by MarkWest1

Greetings Binksternet -- I am trying to broker a peace agreement, or at least a consensus on what should be included in the article, over here. Contact me via my talkpage if you have comments/complaints/questions/whatever. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding latest revert on Aam Aadmi Party page

Hello Binksternet, I suggest inclusion of agitation of battery operated rickshaw drivers in 'protests' section because: The issue of e-rikshaws is not a minor issue as it has a definite history even before AAP supported demands of drivers. In Delhi these rickshaws run between Delhi Metro stations & nearby areas. Delhi government had decided to come down hard on the operators of the battery operated rickshaws last year. There is also a PIL in Delhi Highcourt seeking ban on e-rickshaws due to reasons mentioned in following link for which Delhi High Court has asked government to respond. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-09-12/delhi/42007556_1_e-rickshaws-pil-seeking-ban-sugriv-dubey In the backdrop of these updates, AAP has supported the cause of battery-operated rickshaw drivers & instead of banning them they have demanded a concrete policy for them. While checking the AAP website, I came across an entire article dedicated to this cause as below: http://www.aamaadmiparty.org/news/stop-targeting-battery-rickshaw-operators-arvind-kejriwal This makes it an issue of considerable weight. Moreover the 'protest' section of AAP includes its support to auto rickshaw driver on 10 June 2013 which is similar in its impact to the battery operated rickshaw drivers demand. So if agitation of 10 June 2013 stays, agitation of 16 September should also stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs) 13:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The Times of India article you link to does not mention the Aam Aadmi Party, so it cannot be used at the Aam Aadmi Party article. The aamaadmiparty.org link you provide is a primary source, so it does not establish the importance of the issue. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The 'Times of India' article was given to highlight the importance & existance of the issue even before Aam Aadmi Party supported it. To highlight importance of Aam Aadmi Party's stand on it please see below the links which are not primary sources. http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/now-erickshaw-drivers-join-aam-aadmi-party/article5133817.ece http://post.jagran.com/lack-of-proper-policy-hurting-erickshaw-operators-in-delhi-says-aap-1379317880. Furthermore I am not interested in 'edit war' & only trying to highlight necessity of uniform standards on the article under discussion.--ratastro 14:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@Binksternet, Following the support of AAM to the demand of e-rickshaw drivers to draft a concrete policy, Delhi government constituted a committee to come up with report & guidelines on these type of vehicles. Following are the references http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Govt-plans-panel-on-e-rickshaw-after-Aam-Aadmi-Party-backs-them/articleshow/22672524.cms http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/committee-on-status-of-erickshaws-in-delhi/article5140942.ece & http://www.indianexpress.com/news/govt-appoints-committee-to-lay-down-guidelines-for-erickshaws/1170516/ I think this proves that the issue is not minor & can be included in the article.--ratastro 11:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Your recent edit to Hans-Hermann Hoppe (1), viewed in the larger context of numerous false accusations and flagrant misunderstanding of content, many examples of which were detailed meticulously by Stalwart (2), raises concerns of WP:Competence. In reverting my title which (per the specific and explicit focus of the secondary RS which discussed the passage) indicated Hoppe's views on physically removing homosexuals, you say that "The complaints include reference to Jews, Blacks, etc." Hoppe says nothing whasoever about jews and blacks in the quoted passage, and in their response to the relevant passage, none of the RS say he talked about them either. That Hoppe has been criticized for anti-Semitic or racist remarks in some contexts does not mean every passage he wrote is (or has been considered) racist or anti-Semitic. It is highly concerning that you appear to accept this wildly illogical inference as fact.

A crucial part of competence is reading comprehension. Text needs to be read carefully to be comprehended. Please redouble your efforts in this regard moving forward. Steeletrap (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you completely miss the reference to yellow stars? Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

In the bigger picture, I think it is pretty lame of you to avoid the Hans-Hermann Hoppe talk page to tell interested editors your reasoning for your repeated reverts even after Srich started the discussion for you. (You were supposed to start that discussion yourself per WP:BRD.) Instead, you send this determinedly half-context note to my talk page, obstinately mischaracterizing the issue. This behavior does not win any arguments. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Typically that would be the case. This is special circumstances, given that your flagrantly erroneous assertions are of a piece with a much wider pattern of behavior which raises WP:Competence concerns, as noted above. Steeletrap (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You can say I'm incompetent all day long and I will ignore that portion of your communication as ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You started me laughing at "I don't have a horse in this race". Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Unintentional. I presume you thought it amusing I would compare the two of you to horses, or stubborn mules, or whatever. Purely unintentional. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Binksternet. I don't know if you remember me, but I was one half of a WP:3O discussion that you oversaw at "List of fictional badgers". If you remember you basically opined in favor of the other editor and then based on this I expanded the article quite a bit - giving it a proper lede and adding several further list members on top of restoring all of the original list members. Since this time the list article has been noted in an article by The Guardian as "a thing of beauty" - a fact for which you share partial credit.

Anyway I'm currently writing a feature for the WikiProject Video Games Newsletter on the topic of list article management. I'm seeking to include in this article a variety of different list topics (including non video game lists) and different editorial perspectives, and I was wondering if you would be able to help me by writing a brief paragraph or two on the topic of the "list of fictional badgers". Specifically I'd be interest in some discussion of how our inclusion of a lede worked so well and if possible it might be nice to mention the praise we've received from The Guardian (linked at the article's talk page). The newsletter is due by October 3 so there are 2 weeks to write something if you have the time. You can find the working draft of the article and where your contributions would be needed at User:Thibbs/Sandbox7 (just text search your username). Please don't feel obliged. If you can help me then great, but if not that's fine too. Either way, thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a fun project. I'll look at the old versions to refresh my memory and then I'll think about what I might write. No promises at this point. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Feel free to edit the draft directly if you get a chance. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)