Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:19, 23 May 2014

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 Archive26 – September–October 2013 Archive27 – November–December 2013 Archive28 – January–February 2014 Archive29 – March–April 2014

Suggestion?

An anonymous editor messed with the Mendocino County, California election results for the last presidential election, but didn't provide a source, so I reverted the edit and warned them. Their edit summary used the great word "Fix" which so often is used by POV editors. I left them the standard level 2 warning because their numbers did not match the numbers that were there and they didn't cite anything. I get back from work to find a threat on my talk page; not much of one but still someone not clear on the concept. I found the official county of Mendocino numbers and added the citation so that no one goes to the citation at the bottom and readds the wrong numbers. I would have been just as happy to do that without the threat. What do you suggest? Should I just ignore them, or do something, and if the latter what? Thank you for your advice. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ignore them. I consider this level of friction an unfortunate part of editing Misplaced Pages articles. You did the right thing at the article and your talk page. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Your revert at Battle of Berlin

Hi User:Binksternet: I noticed you reverted my revision (reverting to the stable version) about mass rapes by Soviet soldiers following the Battle of Berlin "per talk page consensus." Could you please POINT OUT what consensus you are referring to. In fact I see no participation by you on that article or the talk page any time recently. I have been following this page for some time, and prior to my edit finished a careful reading of the protracted discussions of the last couple months, during which a single editor appears to have insisted, without gaining traction, on parity for a disfavored minority view. In any case, given your long and distinguished history with the project, do you really think it proper to revert an edit without any prior participation in the subject? My apologies in advance if I'm missing something here. Paavo273 (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion to the article's talk page. Binksternet (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That'd be fine. IMO It would have been logically more appropriate and consistent with Misplaced Pages procedure to have read and understood what was happening there AND participated there prior to becoming involved on the article page. Paavo273 (talk)

Russell Targ

If you would be so kind as to provide full citations (hopefully with links) for some of the discussion of Targ in the press they could be used to improve the article. BTW some of the publications you are referring to as journals are magazines but they may still (most likely) be considered reliable sources. The more info you can provide the better I can format them as references, verify the content and propose paraphrased content (or evaluate proposals from others). Thanks for your research and contributions to WP. I think it is appropriate that Targ gets a fair encyclopedic article and your efforts will make that more possible. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, when I get a chance I'll push some of the most relevant stuff into the Targ bio—not so much press, though, more likely his papers in scholarly journals. Binksternet (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Tripoli Monument

Hi Bink - If I may, I'm in need of a small bit of Wiki-guru help, please. I have written an article on the Tripoli Monument, but such a page already exists as a redirect to a short paragraph of the First Barbary War. I don't know how to break a redirect. Presumably my article will become the main article, and the link will go backwards. That I do know how to do. ☺ My page is here for now: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:JMOprof/sandbox thanks. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 19:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you took the article live... good going. I removed the word "ballast" since finely carved marble sculptures are never thrown down into the bilge or keel. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bink — your judgement is undoubtedly correct. Lesson learned for me. Thank you. If you would, please kill the redirect page Tripoli Monument and I think the pot will be right. I put a "main article" tag on the First Barbary War page. Thank you again. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 23:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Charles R. Blyth

On 9 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles R. Blyth, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that an investment fund named in honor of Charles R. Blyth was established at Stanford University to allow finance students to make decisions with real money? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles R. Blyth. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

About the necessity for the linkages in Comfort women

I have written my opinion about the necessity for the linkages at Talk:Comfort women#About the necessity for the linkages. So please read them and let me know your opinion there.NiceDay (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I will not entertain your wish to diminish Japan's crime in establishing the comfort women system. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 14:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please write your opinion again

I have written my opinion which points out the mistake in your opinion in Talk:comfort women. Please read it. Judging from your opinion, it seems to me that you do not have read Recreation and Amusement Association and Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military in detail. Please read Recreation and Amusement Association and Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military again and write your opinion again. Thank you.NiceDay (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

PS:I cannot distinguish the reason why you consider it relates to the valuation of the event to tell readers about the term being used in different meaning from your opinions. Please write a little more analytically how you think and assert so. Thank you. NiceDay (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Editing Anti-Abortion Movements

Hi, I have been editing the Anti-abortion movements article to include the new movement called the abolitionist movement. The website I reference is that of Abolish Human Abortion the organization that started the abolitionist movement. Would it be better if I cited a news organization in addition to their site? What makes my edits original research? I only quote their site. I do not wish to be disruptive or inappropriate in any way. T.alphageek (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please use WP:SECONDARY sources only. Such sources will show that the abolitionist movement is being discussed in the media. If there is no discussion, then the abolitionist movement is unimportant. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Blinksternet So for instance http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/meet-the-rebels-the-anti-abortion-movement would be a legitimate reference T.alphageek (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a legitimate WP:SECONDARY reference. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Phantom power

Hey, I think there must be a mistake because I have never been on the Phantom Power page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.77.51 (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Somebody else was on that page a year ago, using the same IP address you are on now. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:Con

What in your view constitutes a consensus? Please describe in detail how a consensus could be reached to remove the honorary members of Bohemian Grove. It seems to me that you disregard each consensus in conflict to your views. Steeletrap (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You do not understand what are the different types of honorary member. There are the types such as playwright Clay M. Greene who were so very important to the club that they were rewarded with honorary membership. (Greene wrote the 1921 Grove Play John of Nepomuk, the patron saint of Bohemia, and he edited the 1930 volume 4 of The Annals of the Bohemian Club). There were the types such as Ina Coolbrith who took every advantage of honorary membership—for Coolbrith, the fact is presented in her various biographies. And there are others who had an important intersection with the club, but not so much afterward, such as British actor Henry Irving who was present at the Bohemian Club banquet in his honor, and he responded by giving certain club members lifetime passes to his Lyceum shows in London, but then had little occasion to visit the club in the following years. Finally, there is honorary member Mark Twain for whom there is no recorded interaction between him and the club. Note that the RfC regarding Twain was closed with no consensus.

Inexplicably, all of these different types of honorary member were lumped together in your removal. The later RfC initiated by Collect, the one that is not yet closed, is not asking whether honorary members in general should be included in the list. Instead, Collect is quite positive that it is about whether honorary members should be included in the list if regular biographies of each honored person do not include anything about the Bohemian Club. The RfC is aimed, once again, at Mark Twain, since no regular biographies of him discuss his honorary membership.

So your question about what I consider to be consensus hinges instead around your misunderstanding of the RfC. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

sockpuppet

Just to warn you that User:YavinEight is another sockpuppet of User:GoldDragon. I don't know how to open a request, so brought this to your attention. Limefrostfriend (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

How shameless can this guy get, first he is using Monkeygolde and then Limefrostfriend, all accounts created solely for attack purposes. Two sockpuppets in one day! YavinEight (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

As for no original research, wasn't the original article devoid of sources anyway? YavinEight (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, it isn't original research, I actually got the info from this source: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/austin-police-ask-for-45-million-to-stock-up-on-cr/nRZHc/ YavinEight (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Who are You?

Link would be here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7CXXDBn_l4 Thanx for wasting my time. I won't fix errors anymore on wikipedia. If you are somebody, remove my account. If you are not, please ignore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timrfrench61 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

My point was that if Palmer playing harmonica on a few songs is not an important part of his career then Misplaced Pages does not need to mention it. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Chip Bertlet

The pages is broke. I was going to undo it before 55 gators last change but it won't let me go that far back. His actual argument about it's removal really doesn't stand to well on it's own. And he didn't actually much time reviewing the changes made or conversation taking place. First a blog wasn't used. I switched from the blog spot source to Chip Bertlet's website when I made my change. The use of that as a source lines up with WP:BLPSELFPUB. While the news sources you found call for an addition of information there is no reason to remove any. And well the page is broke.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I was caught in some network error where I thought the whole page had loaded when it was actually incomplete. So when I saved it again, the bottom half was gone. I've seen that before a couple of times, but it's quite rare. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Left-handed

Hi there. Why do we have a if we are not supposed to use it? Or for whom should we use it? For example for a painter but not a president? Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:Categorization, we should use a category if it tells the reader about a defining characteristic of a topic. People who were famously left-handed count, but people who were not widely known as left-handed do not count, especially if their life and career had little to do with their handedness. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

SPA

I'm at a stumbling block in finding a relevent policy. On the Chip Berlet page a Editor Waalkes moved to label Berlet as a advocacy journalist and then an activist. This in itself wouldn't be much. However it seems that waalkes is a SPA. The particular change seems to tie into discussion on the Schiller Institute talk page where the same user mentions that Bertlet is an advocacy journalist. The user seems to be implying that would make him an unreliable source. It's really hard to assume good faith in this situation. Your comments in the schiller institute page lead me to believe you have come accross this apparent disruptive editing by this editor before. I'm just wondering if you think something should be done and what.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no past interaction with Waalkes, but even the briefest glance at his contributions confirms that he is a single-purpose account, focused on attenuating the negative coverage of LaRouche, and emphasizing the positive coverage. I don't know what the next step is in dealing with him, though Waalkes' contributions of this sort can be dismissed out of hand as laughably biased. He's his own worst enemy. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Dodge Durango

Please be more careful when reverting edits such as this one in the Dodge Durango article. That edit actually reverted a series of bad-faith edits by known vandal 68.45.208.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). DES (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Looks like one vandal from Peru was fixing the problems caused by another vandal from New Jersey. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Magic (Coldplay song)

Can you take care of the page if contributor(s) doing any unsourced genres or citation/source removal. 183.171.176.177 (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You say "pop", per Rolling Stone. I get it. However, the Telegraph calls it a ballad, so maybe there's room for both pop and ballad. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Why aren't you an admin? Bearian (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Haha! You don't have to be an admin to wield a mop around here. I just can't push the mop.

Thanks for noticing! Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 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: Nick-D looks at The Lost Boys of Anzac Op-ed: Peacemaker67 on Featured Articles involving Yugoslavia in World War II

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) 22:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

re: whitewashing edward furlong

i warned you, you didn't stop, & now you have this:

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Lx 121 (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:Bite

Your accusations of "vandalism" against a new user are not only erroneous, but in violation of WP:Bite. S/He is not engaged in "vandalism." Rather, s/he is unfamiliar with WP's sourcing policy. The content s/he added appears to be true; Stanhope has spoken of his friendship with Manson and seems to be collaborating with Johnny Depp on a future project. Moreover, neither of these claims are disparaging or particularly controversial. You should have taken 30 seconds to Google the claims this new user was making before hurling (ironically, unsourced) accusations. Steeletrap (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I should get some reading glasses, as I glanced quickly and thought I saw Marilyn Monroe, rather than Manson. Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your concession. But frankly, your tendency to render highly critical and heavy-handed judgments, based only on 'quick glances' at sources and articles, is a problem for the project. Here, in a very cut-and-dry case, it's easy to point out your error. But in other cases -- particularly your summary of sources -- it is an onerous task. (E.G.: On Multiple occasions, you referred to Brian Doherty as an economist and an economic history book as a book on contemporary economic theory.) Steeletrap (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your views.

I noticed that you have never edited the Doug Stanhope biography, nor have you participated on the article talk page, nor have you commented about Stanhope at any noticeboard or project page. So you clearly navigated to the above diff by watching my edits. I suggest that you will not want to violate WP:HOUNDING by continuing to comment on my various activities here. Sincerely, Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, my "hounding" was justified because it showed that that your drive-by edit and allegation of "vandalism" was erroneous. I hope you will learn from your misconduct. Steeletrap (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Bink, if a user has a good faith reason to believe you are prone to policy violations, there would be valid cause to follow your edits. Ironically, the policy you link states as much while also presenting the irony that you appear to have inserted that link without regard for the content it contains. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is at an end. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Tornadoes in Denver

Hi there. I see you added some details about an area in east Denver that seems tornado-prone. Yet the sentence before the one you added says that tornadoes are rare in Denver. I'm not familiar with the city, but the two sentences seem contradictory. Would you be able to clarify this on the article? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Did I do better this time? Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Cited Sources - Stop Islamization of America

Please note that the majority of cited sources do not use "islamophobia". They use "Anti-islam" or "anti-muslim". Please review the sources before you attempt to revert the edit and add political commentary. GrinSudan (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Coldplay

Coldplay is described as a "rock" band in the cited article and its WP article. "Rock" and "pop" aren't mutually exclusive. It appears to me that the IP was correct to add rock to the genre of its new song. In any case, by accusing them of violating NPOV for doing that, you fail to AGF. Dropping that intimidating template, with the big red warning sign, on a new user is WP:Bite-y. I encourage you to withdraw it. I am not following you directly to the page per your request, but I hope you will do the right thing here. Steeletrap (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)