This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You may want to start on replies at the above linked nomination; 3 editors have given a review Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I will catch a night's sleep first then pick up exactly as you suggest. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh, why did you revert my edit on the Mu article? hAVE YOU EVEN PLAYED sTAR fORCE 2? --82.4.229.82 (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

My tolerance level for trivia is very low. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember the book or author, but I saw a book at Books a Million that had a painting of two Seagulls shooting at a smoking Zero, which a description that described the guy and the incident. ProudIrishAspie (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be a very interesting addition to the article if the book can be found. I wonder who was the artist? Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Bedminster, New Jersey questioned a source as unreliable, but removed all of the content associated with it. A rather effortless search of Google News found a few dozen sources to support the claim and should have been used in lieu of wiping out the material from the article. Please be careful in the future to either tag as requiring sources or find a better source rather than removing content that was verifiable with extremely minimal effort. Alansohn (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point and I practice it when appropriate. I spent quite some time today taking down links to mysendoff.com because it is not a reliable source. A few minutes after my Bedminster edit I did exactly what you recommend here at the Victorian era article; I removed the unreliable source and placed a "citation needed" template. However, at Bedminster, I removed the whole bit because I thought it was unneeded information about a future proposal, one that may not happen. It did not look particularly valuable to me. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As you can see from the King City High School Auditorium article, I've been writing articles on California NRHP articles that strike my fancy now that the NRHP nomination documents for all of CA are scanned and uploaded to the NPS Focus site. Thanks for going out and finding those images, and I'll see if I can write a few more articles to account for the images that don't yet have articles. Acroterion (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you for writing the KCHS Auditorium article. I'm a WPA architecture fan and I had heard of the fine relief work by Jo Mora so when the missus and me were driving on US 101 past King City in February 2009 we stopped and I shot about 20 photos. I did not think to put together an article about it! Good work on your part. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Gray Brechin's Living New Deal project has another photo taken from inside the foyer showing an aluminum bas-relief sculpture; I think the photo is in public domain. You can see it here. They also have my stitched-together photo of the building entrance. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

My method has been to look through the redlinked-but-illustrated NRHP items and see what looks interesting, and your picture caught my eye. It's been very hard to write properly-sourced material about California properties since the documentation's been lacking, but now that it's online for the past month or so it's gotten way easier and there are still so many redlinked WPA topics to work with. I saw the Living New Deal page when I was looking around for more sources; I'll have to spend more time there. Acroterion (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah! I see that the list National Register of Historic Places listings in Monterey County, California, includes one article I wrote: Milpitas Ranchouse. I should make another drive to the area with the aim of writing about another historic site—one of the redlinks. Mrs. Binksternet quite likes that area so it's not hard to suggest a weekend out. Perhaps the Robinson Jeffers House requires a visit... Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

On 12 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Milonguero, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that milonguero-style tango is danced with a close embrace? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Milonguero.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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on the FA promotion. Well deserved :) Fayedizard (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks for the thanks, and thanks for helping! Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Santa Maria de Ovila. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sweet! Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

On 16 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Out of left field, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the first known use of the phrase out of left field in its idiomatic sense was by the American music industry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Out of left field.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.

Yngvadottir (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to know what you're doing. Do you have any tips on how to get more involved? I'm still learning the basics of navigating the community.Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Two quick tips: Keep coming to Wikipedia to add and delete things, trimming and expanding articles as you see fit. For a sanity break, work on articles that are not about contentious topics. Binksternet (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! And I can't thank you enough for adding sanity to that talk page.Jasonnewyork (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, is there any way to organize your friends on here? I've run across a lot of great people, and I'd love to stay connected to them.Jasonnewyork (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I know of no particularly effective way for one editor to organize his friends in a set, to communicate to them as a group, unless they all join one WikiProject such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. However, anyone else can join a WikiProject. Otherwise, you can keep half an eye on the conversations of other editors if you add their talk pages to your WP:Watchlist. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That page we were working on has gotten ridiculous. They've started in again on the "it's original research" argument. I didn't expect this on Wikipedia. On some partisan blog, yes, but on here? It's just nonsensical. I don't think I have the stomach for it. There's a pervasive petulance to it all.Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Wise words. Thank you.Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Was editing a random, non-political page (got there through the philosophy project I joined) and saw your name up above my edits afterwards. Not stalking you, was totally random, thought it was funny.Jasonnewyork (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not worried about you stalking me. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't help it. I have to share this. I laughed myself silly reading the debates on this page. Seriously, I gave myself the hiccups I was laughing so hard. I hope it's OK to share this with you. Go through the edit history (comments) and the talk page. The seriousness involved in these debates had me crying and wheezing I was laughing so hard. Hope you get it.Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have acquired a lot of accolades from Wikipedia. Nonetheless, you are mistaken about the usages of en dashes and em dashes.

Em dashes—typographic marks that occupy the width of the character M in traditional typefaces—are used for emphasis or interruption. And so, em dashes are the correct typographic marks in this sentence: "Lhasa recorded a third album—Lhasa—but she was diagnosed with cancer in 2009 around the time it was released."

En dashes—typographic marks that occupy the width of the character N in traditional typefaces—have numerous uses, the most common of which is to connect two items, usually a range of numbers or dates. They are never used for emphasis or interruption within a sentence.

In the Lhasa de Sela entry, em dashes are being used to interrupt the sentence only to specify the title of her third album, which, although grammatically and typographically correct, is an almost excessive usage. Commas are the more appropriate punctuation in this instance, and so, I have made that change to the article. It now reads: "Lhasa recorded a third album, titled Lhasa, but she was diagnosed with cancer in 2009 around the time it was released."

Now that I re-read it, this sentence could use further revision. I will continue to revise it, and the rest of the entry, in the interest of improving the article. 75.27.41.134 (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with commas. Two different types of dashes are allowed for sentence interruption, per WP:DASH, Wikipedia's in-house manual of style. The two kinds are spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's house style is a jumble of styles. Following the standard in North America—both Canada and the U.S.A.—em dashes would be used in this instance. Commas make more sense in this particular sentence, though, so the question is no longer relevant. But I will leave you with a rhetorical question: If Wikipedia's in-house manual of style allows for what was there (spaced en dashes) or what I put there (unspaced em dashes), what purpose did it really serve for you to revert my edits? 75.27.41.134 (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

My thought was this: If both kinds are allowed then why change from one to the other? Generally, the style established in an article at the outset is the style that stays, including things such as style of citations, variation of English spelling (British, Oxford, American), style of date format (day first, month first) and so on. In reverting you I was retaining the initial style. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2! You are invited!

The San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2 will be held on Saturday, June 16, 2012 at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco. Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join us! This event will be specifically geared around encouraging women to learn how to edit and contribute to Wikipedia. Workshops on copy-editing, article creation, and sourcing will be hosted. Bring a friend! Come one, come all! EdwardsBot (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC) · Unsubscribe

Ach! Once more I am working on the day of the meetup. Regrets! Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the beverage. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

Hello, Binksternet. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

The information about TA Associates is incorrect (introduced by an error in the NYT). Should be removed from the article.Heekin (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Show me the correction published by NYT. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I am an attorney who has worked with Full Sail and TA Associates and when I read this, I recognized this phrasing was inaccurate. I see your point on the Full Sail University talk page and understand that it is not clearly defined in other sources online - but since I knew it wasn’t correct, I thought I would correct it. As a new user, I was not familiar with the editing procedures in place on Wikipedia and apologize for the changes without recognizing the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heekin (talk • contribs) 19:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't want the article to be purposely wrong, so it is possible that we just select the reliable sources that get closest to the truth. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I consider your comment and offensive graphic to be wikibullying. Your edits on my talk page are unwelcome and unwanted. MiamiManny (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? I consider your support of hypocrisy to be unacceptable: you added Elizabeth Warren to the List of Native American women of the United States apparently without even reading the cited source. It says Warren cannot be a Native American as she is not endorsed by any Native American nation. Your reversion of Uyvsdi to restore IP 209's hypocrisy was classic knee-jerk battleground-style editing. There's the bully. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

	San Francisco Wiknic at Golden Gate Park
	You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Golden Gate Park, in San Francisco, on Saturday, June 23, 2012. We're still looking for input on planning activities, and thematic overtones. List your add yourself to the attendees list, and edit the picnic as you like. —Max Klein {chat} 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Invite.

Gee, I always seem to end up working on the Saturdays that are scheduled for these events. One of these days I'll be available. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Per your request, I have started a discussion on the talk page centered on this issue. I am leaving this message here to inform you that I have listed the reasons why I feel the mention should be moved/removed, and in the interest of disclosure to inform you that I have notified WP:OMT, WP:SHIPS, and WP:MILHIST of the discussion so as to include any interest party in the discussion. With a little diplomacy, and hopefully some outside input, we should be able to determine what the best of course of action for the article is.

On a related note, if I left out any interested parties in the above mentioned groups then please do feel free to inform them of the discussion. I have no issue with editor/project notifications on this matter, all I ask that I be informed of you decide to notify so that I can keep track of which projects/editors will be commenting on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond at the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For suggesting the discussion that ultimately led to a change in consensus for the article USS Missouri (BB-63) without a prolong edit war or an overly large amount of Wikidrama between opposing camps I hereby present you with the Diplomacy Barnstar. Congrats. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very considerate. Best! Binksternet (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. If there is one thing I have learned low these twenty-something years I've been on the planet its this: you need to be able to lose graciously, and to acknowledge others who through their words or actions have bested you. Accordingly, this was the least I could do for you under the circumstances. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For the hypocritical swipe you took at Warren at List of Native American women of the United States. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You posted the above for me.

Here is my single edit to the article Elizabeth WarrenList of Native American women of the United States: [1].

Here is my single edit to the Talk Talk:Elizabeth WarrenTalk:List of Native American women of the United States: [2].

It seems obvious you have no idea what "hypocritical" and/or "swipe" mean. 207.255.10.164 (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

A new low in reading comprehension. The link is clearly shown, pointing to a different article where you added something for which the supplied cite disproved the supposed fact. Thanks for coming to visit me, though. Have a fine weekend. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

My diff links have always plainly pointed to the correct article. My provided reference plainly supports the fact, to wit:

• The Harvard Crimson, October 22, 1996, "Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic... Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American."

Your post on my Talk was nonsense. Nothing in that cited source "disproves" the article's near-primary point: Elizabeth Warren is Native American. If you believe Warren is NOT a Native American, please provide a ref for that (otherwise, you seem to be relying on WP:OR to insist that The Harvard Crimson was in error). --207.255.10.164 (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am glad you feel the need to come to my talk page and joust with me; it means you are causing less trouble elsewhere—fewer headaches for the editors who do not have an activist axe to grind. Regarding the first diff: you failed to cite the Harvard Crimson in the article proper—you listed Warren without a cite, just like Cheeseburrito did before you. I saw your reversion to restore Cheeseburrito's faulty version as edit warring with a view to hurt Warren. Cheeseburrito had been reverted by Seb az86556 and then again by me. You were piling on, hence the trout.

Enjoy your Memorial Day, hug a veteran if you can. Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Lionelt's talk page.

• Bink, that article attracts ******** like shit draws flies. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't you know it! When activists camp out at an article it all goes to hell. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

2012-06-13

At Talk:Elizabeth Warren, you deleted a Talk section[3] suggesting the discussion of sobriquets in the article (namely, "there should at least be a line or two POINTING OUT that the names are in such use"). Perhaps you know that WP:TALKO states, "removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." However, the comment post you removed is not of the type covered in that guideline, which explicitly states, "Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." Furthermore, you chose to call the commenter a "troll" as your reason for deletion. Per m:What is a troll?#Misidentified trolls, "the judgment that someone is a troll is a subjective one, it is always possible that someone will be misidentified as a troll". Also, per WP:VVT#Trolls: "Specifically, a troll makes nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia with the intent of provoking an angry reaction in other users." There seems nothing about the specific Talk page suggestion which might provoke anger in a typical editor. I believe both your deletion and your choice to label another a "troll" were wrong. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I was wrong. I still think the talk page entry was trolling, and I think it a mistake to respond to the person. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't respond to the person, respond to the suggestion. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I aim for a high signal-to-noise ratio, and if there are persons who would waste the time of others, I will try to stop them. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:DisruptTalk#Responding thoughtfully: "Rationalizations for rejection that appear as curt or haughty or snide rarely result well." --→gab 24dot grab← 15:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

To me it was/is clear that the IP editor sought to be disruptive. From your response here it seems that the case is more borderline than I thought. I continue to hold that the IP's talk page addition was not constructive and should be deleted. I will not delete it, however. I'm done with this line of discussion. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Encouraged by the actions and expressed opinions of respected editors, I am once again removing the thread which was re-added by anonymous IP. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You've likely seen that I restored the section again[4], and an admin has closed the discussion thread[5]. Please let it be; thanks. --→gab 24dot grab← 18:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you removed my addition? "Perfect Declipper can nearly completely remove harmonics distortion, but not all intermodulation distortion." Your response was: "Rv hardly likely." - does that mean that you think the statement is not true? If so, I'ld like to refer you to the Perfect Declipper demo video that plays some recordings before and after repair: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqOljvx9KaM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.39.55 (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would characterize the Pefect Declipper as being able to make a clipped audio file be more listenable, not characterize it with a waffling non-statement such as "nearly completely" being able to meet an easily measurable technical criteria. Also, you will need to find a reliable secondary source, not a promotional youtube video. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok clear. I tried to find other sources but so far I failed - I did find some online reviews that compared it to other declippers and concluded that this one does a better job, but you can hardly quality those as "reliable". So, should I just add a link without any statements about what it does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.39.55 (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If nobody from a reliable source (industry rag, engineering journal) has commented on the declipper then Wikipedia does not need to list it. We summarize published facts; we do not deliver new facts that have not been published in reliable sources. Sorry! Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bink. I just wanted to take a moment to apologise for my uncivil and wholly unwarranted intimation that you'd not come to your own conclusion about Cronon's blog, but had been unduly influenced by others. Seriously, that was way out of line, and in retrospect I feel pretty embarrassed for having implied it. It's no excuse, but I was trying so hard in the thread to avoid responding with in-kind aggression to opposing editors that I let my irritation at them spill over, completely unfairly, on to you, a like minded one in the context. I do still think it's helpful to readers to have a link to the entry in the section, so they can easily see for themselves what touched off all the drama, but it was wrong of me to try to argue for that unfairly and prejudicially, as I did. Sorry. --OhioStandard (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That's okay! No sweat. Binksternet (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

...for your wisdom [6]. I know it is a contentious area right now, and I personally appreciate it when I see an editor that will correct an innocent mistake on their own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish the reason for your thanks was something I was happier about! Heh heh... Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, it was a thanks for using good judgement and having enough character to not just see if you can get away with it. Th

at isn't a bad thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not my fault that style choices on Wikipedia were made by ignoramuses operating in a vacuum. Sorry, but the guidelines on use of dashes are wrong, and not followed by competent book publishers. They are also contrary to principles taught to typists in business schools. There is a reason for preceding em dashes and en dashes with a non-breaking space and following them with a normal space. Since Wikipedia isn't a typesetting system, we have no other means of controlling where a sentence will break. If no spaces are provided, the em dash or en dash can and will end up in column 1 of the following line when rendered in most browsers. Book publishers take great pains to avoid this, because it breaks the stride of the reader; even though you can no doubt find examples to the contrary, this is generally the result of poor proofreading. I will continue to do what I am doing until the people who wrote this drivel get their act together and clean up WP:MoS. You can tell editors such as Fat&Happy that I said so. — Quicksilver^{T @} 18:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your target is the talk page of the MOS, not me. I don't particularly care how specifically you think you are right; the main point is that you are going against Wikipedia's house style. "Ignoramuses" are the ones you will need to convince in order to get your preference. People are going to resist that style of approach. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No clue why my San Francisco edit was reverted. Apologies if this is the wrong method of communicating; haven't attempted user-to-use communication within Wikipedia before.

Thanks, Burne — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurneHoliday (talk • contribs) 20:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I focused on all the question marks that your edit applied to the interwiki links at the bottom of the page, the ones that link to different language Wikipedia articles about San Francisco. Perhaps you were using a text editor that attempted some kind of spelling correction.

Sorry about removing Christina Olague. I went in just now and restored her name.

In the future, please try not to disturb the interwiki links. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahh -- What I did was I copy/pasted the entire text of the article into Textpad, edited it there, then copy/pasted the whole thing back. That clearly caused the problem.

In the future I'll be sure to edit from within Wikipedia; thank you for your guidance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurneHoliday (talk • contribs) 22:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is Cwmhiraeth (submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, Grapple X (submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. Miyagawa (submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by Casliber (submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, Muboshgu (submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That reference did not say anything about the film being a box office failure, which the Wikipedia contributor stated. The film was the 6th highest grossing film of the year and so that incorrect information needed to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeser (talk • contribs) 08:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The film is not so much "forgotten" today, as you asserted without a cite. The bit about not being a success is a summary of other information in the article body. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of information in the article body. It did not make all of its money back, so the studio lost money on it. That gives us the summary of not being a success. Binksternet (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"Push the button, Max."

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 02:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Sarah (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. My only intent originally was to clarify that in the sentence "input on a jack or an XLR connector", a TRS jack was being referred to. It is after all not correct to assume that "jack" means "quarter inch jack". So I was a little puzzled at your first revert as I never meant to imply the "male = output" convention would apply to the TRS connector. And I don't think I did. In fact that potential confusion was the reason I added the paragraph break before that sentence. Your second try does the right thing. Incidentally, it occurs to me that you can't have a combo XLR male / TRS female chassis mount connector as there is no way to combine the two. So the combo connector only applies to XLR inputs (as long as the flow direction convention is maintained). Jeh (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition to the article. Two heads are better than one! Binksternet (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

....my first Oakland institution :) The Alley (bar). Sarah (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! Nice image and infobox etc :) Sarah (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If you don't then I will write up a multi--author DYK entry for it. If me then I will ping you for an alternate hook. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

See contentious submission. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I commented. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In the "commercialization of tango" text I added citations from primary published sources. These include references to the Wall Street Journal article, quotations from the recent published book by Virginia Gift about history of tango, references to the "New Tango" article by the well known tango personality Gustavo Naveira, as well as interview with Pablo Verón (very well known and influential tanguero) documenting his views. I presented views of Susana Miller who represents one side of the discussion on milonguero style as well as that of opposing view of Gustavo Naveira. One should also note that the section I wrote is not there by itself but it is within larger context including discussion about tango revival and its successes. I wrote large sections on Argentine tango on Wikipedia including, for example, Figures of Argentine tango, article on tango personalities, etc. So, I do not think that I have NPOV views on Argentine tango in general. To the contrary. Commercialization of tango is a real development and my text contributes to contemporary history of Argentine tango, thus it is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not developed by removing what other Wikipedians wrote but by adding material which presents balanced view. In summary, I request that my text is added back to the article. If you have opposite views, you are welcome to modify my text. 00:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcirrus2 (talk • contribs)

• Hi. You removed my edits for the second time. I am not experienced editor on English wikipedia in terms of administrative procedures and it seems to be that you are engaging in editorial wars and vandalization of my hard work. There has to be some closure here (for example formal discussion by more than three of us) beyond deleting and bringing back my edits. Therefore, I request that such a discussion is initiated before you delete them for the third time. Pcirrus2 (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Think we should bring the case back there? Previous warnings and sanctions don't seem to have done any good. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Mitsuo Fuchida was not a pilot (in Japanese "Sojuin" 操縦員). He was a navigator, a bombardier and a reconnoiterer (in Japanese "Teisatsuin" 偵察員). The pilot of Fuchida's bomber on 7 December 1941 is Mitsuo Matsuzaki. If Fuchida is described as a pilot,　that is wrong. Fuchida didn't hold a control stick. It was Matsuzaki's job.--Amarube (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That is only one mission. Earlier, Fuchida was trained as a pilot and navigator, both. For the attack on Pearl Harbor, he was the commander of the first wave, so it was appropriate for him to have another man serve as pilot, to allow him to focus greater attention on the mission as it developed. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Ikuhiko Hata's Nihon rikukaigun sogo jiten, most popular encyclopedia abaut Japanese Imperial Army and Navy in Japan, Fuchida didn't go to the pilot training course. He went to the navigator training course, and afther graduated that course, he flew as a navigator. On the one hand, fighter pilot Minoru Genda went to pilot training course. So, Fuchida was not a pilot.--Amarube (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that means the English sources and that Japanese source are in conflict. In a few days I will revisit the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

In Fuchida's autobiography (『真珠湾攻撃総隊長の回想 淵田美津雄自叙伝』 Shinjuwan kōgeki sōtaichō no kaisō : Fuchida Mitsuo jijoden ISBN 9784062144025), there is no description that he flew as a navy pilot. Are there any English sources which say that Fuchida went to the pilot training course of the Imperial Japanese Navy? If the answer is no or you cannot answer this question, there is no conflict between English sources and Japanese sources, and so the article of Mitsuo Fuchida should be corrected immediately.--Amarube (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Fuchida was not a pilot but the word of "aviator" is applied to him, because his roll was an aviation navigator, a bombardier and a reconnoiterer.--Amarube (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay! Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you have deleted description, Fuchida's rank (Commander, not Lieutenant Commander) at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor is not written in the article.--Amarube (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, is it possible to find out the archives of old Filmfare magazines online. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything obvious out there. How many years back are you interested in? Binksternet (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

1990 onwards. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In an online search I saw a scan of the magazine's cover, one from 1990, but none of the text from the articles inside. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to check the existence of these issues:

• The prized people: Profiling the Filmfare south award winners", Filmfare, 1994
• "The Big Splash; Special-South Awards", Filmfare, 1993
• "Won from the heart..39th Annual Filmfare Awards Nite", Filmfare, May 1993
  —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

To me, those look like fabricated entries. One was added by Rajeshbiee, so you can ask him again for scans, even though the last time you asked him in April he did not deliver anything. There is no trace of those articles online except on Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia mirrors. I find it very suspicious that nothing can corroborate the existence of these articles. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bink,

I am wondering why is the link to the Salsa Beat Machine removed from the article about Salsa Music. The article contains a great deal of information about the different instruments in Salsa music and their common patterns, and the Salsa Beat Machine lets the read complete the experience of learning by not only reading and understanding the way each of the patterns is built, but also listening to each individual pattern and getting to know them by ear, and then realizing how these patterns can be combined together and create the rich Salsa music.

Many people who don't have a strong musical education find it hard or even impossible to get a good understanding of the patterns by looking at the sheet music and reading textual description. Having a way to experiment with the Salsa Beat Machine opens them the possibility to make sense of what they read. In that light, I believe that keeping the link to the free online program does provide a value to many readers, and I ask to put it back.

Thanks for the consideration, Urishaked (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Salsa Beat Machine appears to be self-published by an anonymous person. As such, it is not reliable—it may not be trusted to be correct. If it were advocated by a known expert that would make a huge difference. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. While the Salsa Beat Machine is indeed self-published, it is widely accepted by many Salsa and latin dance schools around the world (I would love to give references as required). In addition, the musical correctness of the program was inspected back in Januray 2010 by the Latin musician Alex Wilson, and the program was modified according to his comments and recommendations (you can also see the relevant blog post), setting a high standard of correctness to the program. I hope this put things in a slightly different light. Looking forward for your answer, Urishaked (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The blog entry is also self-published, and anonymous, so it is not reliable. If a known expert in salsa were to recommend the Salsa Beat Machine in a newspaper or magazine article, or a book on music, that would work. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bink, Thanks for pointing out what would work. Now that I understand that, I will focus on finding a recommendation that will be reliable and verifiable. I truly believe in the correctness of the Salsa Beat Machine, yet I understand why wikipedia editors are looking for the word of a recognized expert, and I am willing to help to make it happen. I will see if I can get assisted by the major contributors for Salsa Music. I am sure that this will way lead to an expert source that could recommend that program in a reliable way. Do you know any relevant contacts who could assist in this matter? Urishaked (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You might want to ask a music professor at a local college or university, one that is willing to say publicly in print that the online tool is a good teaching tool. This person should be interviewed about Latin music or about learning tools. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I will see what can be done and keep you posted. By the way, is there a way to receive a mail notification whenever one replies to a message that I left on the talk page? Thanks! Urishaked (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Muy buenas Binksternet, quisiera saber porqué motivo quitó la edición de las ventas actualizadas de la cantante que yo había realizado. Las fuentes son fiables ya que son secundarias, como lo es de la revista Time (véase la fotografía aquí). Por favor, me gustaría que llegaramos en razón entre pares. Veo que ha redactado varios artículos buenos y destacados, sí, pero dejeme decirle que muchos presentan falencias y no tienen completitud, pasa que aquí en la Wikipedia inglesa hay muchos good topics que también pretenden demostrar que es lo "mejor de lo mejor" cuando no es así. Saludos, Chrishonduras (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I will look again at the sources to see what can be saved from them. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a pleasure seeing your expressed interest in this subject. The entire effort is still very much underway. It will be great having your ideas. If you have any questions at all please feel free to ask, or share your comments. Again, it's great having you on board. My76Strat (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I am curious to see how this develops. By career I am a live sound guy, mixing sound for live events, and sometimes remixing or mastering the resulting recordings. The sad truth is that most of these do not involve live music, just people talking; the pay is much greater for corporate work than for tours, one-off concerts and nightclub dates. Nonetheless, I keep an ear out for recording studio developments and I have an interest in the history of the San Francisco Bay Area music scene. See User:Binksternet/Articles_created and User:Binksternet/Significant_contributor if you want an idea of what articles I have worked on. Recent ones include The Automatt, Lhasa de Sela, Record Plant, Bruce Jackson (audio engineer) and, surprisingly, Out in left field. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is good stuff. Rather than curious observation. You are an asset to help develop our direction. One priority in development which well suits your qualification is the MOS for standardizing articles in scope. Be "bold" with any ideas you have as we can hone these to a set of best practice suggestions. My76Strat (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Just found out about this. For a time I had plenty of experience with this editor and knew he was difficult at best but did not realise the full extent of the disruptive activity. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that he was difficult in his dealings with others but that characteristic was not so much my concern as the faking of references in violation of WP:V. If you ever find a faked reference that was added by Legolas, please add it to User talk:Legolas2186/Fixing citation problems so everyone else can keep track. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to a difficult civilary especially, rather the reverting of edits that question the validity of content and also the appeal to authority in arguing for the keeping of WP:SYNTH content. In highsight that behaviour makes some sense. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

On another note, it's possibly that some of the fixing citation problems are false positives because this user made extensive use of multiple sandbox pages to temporarily put content so it could be possible that a version of an article is copied to his sandbox and weeks later(after some improvements) copied back to the article. Therefore, finding an edit where he inserts some content may actually be a re-inserting of content (even in the case of references from a different but related page) that was in the article days or many weeks prior. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's good information. When I get time I will look for such false positives. I don't want to saddle Legolas with the responsibility for poor work by others. On the other hand, if he temporarily removed material from an article so that he could polish it up before bringing it back in, fact checking should have been part of it. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

On 14 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Alley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that The Alley piano bar has walls papered with thousands of business cards, including ones from Jerry Brown and Gregg Allman? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Alley. 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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Very well deserved for detailed research, bringing it to others attention and helping to fix the problems. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

<blush> Thank you! What a fine gesture. Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome. It would be great if more editors would pay such attention. BTW, if you ever up for RFA please give me a nudge, so I can support. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That is very kind, and I will take you up on your offer if ever I run. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A video of Cacho Dante himself saying that he and Susana Miller taught together in Almagro and came up with the "milonguero style" term is not a reliable source????? How about a page on Susana Miller's own web site confirming that as fact... http://www.susanamiller.com.ar/comentarios.htm

Guess it doesn't matter now since you trimmed the section and linked it to a separate article (which looks like it needs a lot of work) ;-)

Looks like the separate Susana Miller article has errors too. I know her well and I'll be seeing her in a couple of weeks, so I will help her correct the details of the Susana Miller article at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.189.187 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, you are right. The bit about Tete was not very well sourced, certainly not better sourced than a youtube video from the person involved or the website of another person involved. All of the sources we have are essentially self-published, so they are not great, but I accept that Tete is not the guy Susana worked with to form her Estilo Milonguero. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Convention is to say of any person, living or dead, "so and so is/was an [name of country]-an/ian/etc." Chicago and San Francisco are not countries. I've had Royko on my watch list for a long time, but thanks to that article-ownership foolishness by that other editor, I have now been forced to remove it from my watchlist. P.S. Stay off my talk page. If you come up with something useful to say, say it here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I will defer to your experience re: the Vaughn Walker article intro, but I do have a question: why are some intros more comprehensive? For instance, Marilyn Patel's introduction gives broader info than Walker's or Ware's. Is this less desirable? Thanks for the help Ddb2001 (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I used WP:LEAD as the guideline for removing the current information about Walker from the lead section and putting it in the article body. The lead section can/should be expanded in order for the biography to be well-written, but anything in the lead section must be a summary of material found in the article body.

A quick look at the Marilyn Hall Patel biography makes me think that the lead section is trying to take the place of the commonly used "Early life" and "Career" sections of a biography. A couple of headers added to that biography would help. After that, the lead section would need to be expanded, summarizing the article body.

After glancing at the James Ware (judge) biography I can see it suffers from the same problem as the Walker biography. Both are too thin up top. Both could use some expansion of the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is quite helpful. I agree, and think I'll look around for some models that are intelligent and well-executed. Cheers Ddb2001 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you recent 3O at "list of fictional badgers". As you may have anticipated, I have a few concerns and I was wondering if you could address them for me. I've never actually gone through the 3O process before, so I'm not sure whether you're allowed to enter into the conversation further at this point (i.e. I don't know if you are allowed to address additional concerns I've brought in), but I am interested in at least a clarification of your second point when you have the time. Thanks again. -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Responded at the list talk page. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. -Thibbs (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, WikiProject US National Archives member!

We are seeking a coordinator to help reboot the project and work on new initiatives! The role is modeled after other Wikiproject coordinators, like the WikiProject Military History coordinators. The coordinator will work with the Wikipedian in Residence to organize and increase participation in the WikiProject, with the goal that the WikiProject is an active space for collaboration maintained by and for the Wikipedia editors, rather than the National Archives.

Please see the full information at Wikipedia:GLAM/NARA/Coordinator and contact me is you have any questions. Feel free to pass this note along to any interested parties. Thanks! Dominic·t 21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, please speak easy English because I'm Japanese and I cannot understand difficult English, slung and delicate representation of "idioms".

At first, please teach me "Undid revision 498601463".

When in WWII , all Korean has Japanese citizenship. Therefore, the word of the "Japanese military" include Japanese and Korean soldier. It's obvious. If you say "It's lie", I can see you the evidence, but you need it?

Or, do you want to say "Koreans have not sexual desire at all"? It is not because even now in Korea happen 10 times higher than that of Japan sex crime. If it true, "Raitaihan problem" should not happen. Do not you say "Show me the evidence Koreans were using the comfort station". if you say it, I say "Show me the evidence Japanese were using the comfort station". Japanese army had been using it, but there is a probability the "Japanese army include no Japaneses". If you say "It's lie", you need see me the evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingwrong (talk • contribs) 04:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not refer to the United States as US or USA in any portion of the article, I did referred to it as the United States of America since that is its formal heading. If one of the purpose of Wikipedia is to add formality and seriousness to its content then we must use the correct terminology. We have to make a distinction since there are other countries and/or federations that use the "United States" as their heading. --sglooney316 21:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Right you are, but not on Wikipedia where the consensus is to leave off the "of America" part. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Argentine tango. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Your recent actions on the Argentine tango article appear to be bordering on an edit war. Please discuss the edits on the editors talk page. All involved users have received the same warning/notice. AndrewN ^talk 00:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added proposed text to be added to the article on Argentine tango. It is in the "talk" page of this article. Please notify a broad range of people interested in this topic and post the comments (I do not not who they are or how to do it). Once we develop consensus I plan to add this text to the article. There are more references related to commercialization of tango. Pcirrus2 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I will look at it when I have time. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

I just can't tell you how much your words meant to me, but they've made my day for two days now. Thanks for commenting at the BP DR, and for being here at Wikipedia! petrarchan47^Tc 22:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia neutral. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have any extra time, would you be willing to hear a few thoughts I had regarding spin and special interests on Wikipedia? You might know where I should take the observations so that something (less time consuming than DRN) can be done. petrarchan47^Tc 22:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You can post publicly right here or email me. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks again. petrarchan47^Tc 19:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

We are in agreement. Do you have any idea how malleable Wikipedia is? Are they open to new ideas like the one you mentioned? And how would one go about that process? I can give you my email if you let me know you want to email me. Thank you again (insert emoticon smiley here). petrarchan47^Tc 05:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, good news to know that some 'power editors' are actually good guys. On another note, I noticed you've edited the Iran coup of 1953. I found "All the Shaw's Men" online! I did a pretty extensive amount of research in the past month, and ran across a few more very interesting articles regarding the coup: 123. Thought I'd drop them off for you just in case you find them interesting too. petrarchan47^Tc 06:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've emailed you my addy. petrarchan47^Tc 06:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see your email address, of course, and I can reply to it, but I prefer the little bit of anonymity that is provided by emailing through Wikipedia's server. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll enable that function. petrarchan47^Tc 23:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding US Troop suicides, the section which shows editor's unwilllingness to allow criticisms on that page is here. "US Troops" redirects to this page as well as the Army and Military Deployments. petrarchan47^Tc 23:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am thinking it is time to take this to the Administrator's Noticeboard. Would you feel comfortable offering an opinion on that? petrarchan47^Tc 07:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly comment on such a noticeboard discussion thread. However, I think it more appropriate to keep working on it for a while longer at the article talk page. The next steps might be Request for Comment on the article talk page, or a question directed to the military history project page. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I was referring to the BP issue, actually. petrarchan47^Tc 03:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC) I've decided I will be opening up a case at ANI and would welcome your involvement. Your suggestion for the military is really good, once I've recuperated from the current project, I might go ahead and follow your advice. petrarchan47^Tc 03:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In connection with your comment on Women in architecture, I've just been looking at Santa Maria de Ovila. Great stuff! Keep up the good work. - Ipigott (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :)

Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

	teaches
	I appreciate the coaching, will you further explain what was wrong with my edit. J.S. Fullmer was my 4th great grandfather. I am very interested in telling more people about him. Cjohn0821 (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet. Is this still an active dispute? WP:AN3#User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:Binksternet (Result: ). No admins have commented yet. Let me know if the complaint can be closed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Close it. The danger to the wiki has passed. A block at this point would be punitive. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As you were a recent participant in an edit war at the above-named article I am taking the opportunity to warn you formally that the article is now under a no-reverts rule. This means that from now on anyone making a revert will be blocked instantly without further warning, except in cases of really obvious vandalism. Instead of reverting, you should consider trying for compromise either by drafting a good-faith compromise in the article, or discussing towards one in talk. Edit-warring deters other editors and poisons the atmosphere that we need to edit constructively. Please do not do it.--John (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you should have locked the article instead. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at Jim1138's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello, Binksternet. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Working with recent addition by IP editor who says he is grandson. Unfortunately, there is solid proof of Arlington burial

I did a check on the Arlington online search and it didn't find a record for George Churchill Kenney. I would think a fairly prominent person would have been referenced in the online lookup. -- Avanu (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess I meant to say multiple website references and one photo. There is a photo at the bottom of Arlington's official page for Kenney. The photo was taken by Michael R. Patterson, a guy who only takes photos of Arlington tombstones. He does not normally travel to distant cemeteries for photos. He wrote that Kenney's tombstone, the one in his photo, is in "Section 30 (Grave 398) of Arlington National Cemetery". Other websites confirm that Kenney was buried in Arlington. I searched for a George Kenney burial in Florida in 1977, but I got nothing. I understand that sometimes a body is moved from or to Arlington, but there is no evidence of two burials for Kenney. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Took a look at that picture. Did a lookup at http://gravelocator.cem.va.gov/j2ee/servlet/NGL_v1

KENNEY, SARAH ELIZABETH W/O GEORGE C

DATE OF BIRTH: 03/15/1912

DATE OF DEATH: 12/26/1970

BURIED AT: SECTION 30 SITE 398 R H

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY

C/O DIRECTOR ARLINGTON, VA 22211

(703) 607-8000

UNKNOWN RELATIONSHIP TO VETERAN

GEN USAF

It's a little odd that it is done like this. "W/O GEORGE C" and "UNKNOWN RELATIONSHIP". I assume W/O means "wife of". It might be done in a slightly different way, because it looks like she died in 1970 and he died 7 years later. So Arlington would have made a tombstone without his date of death. Maybe? -- Avanu (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me as if the tombstone was made when Kenney's second wife some woman died in 1970, but when he died in 1977 the descendants of Kenney and the first wife decided that he should not lie next to the second wife this woman in eternity. I can find no record of a funeral ceremony for Kenney, anywhere. I am having difficulty finding more about the first wife. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC) (Strikethrough and changes made. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC))

The two marriages producing children are explained in this bit written by author Thomas E. Griffith in a biography of Kenney: "Kenney's time in Long Island was also marked by personal tragedy and transition. His wife Hazel died in September 1922, shortly after giving birth to a son, William Richardson Kenney. Hazel had previously been pregnant with twins, but suffered a miscarriage, and doctors warned her about the risks of another pregnancy. She was, however, determined to have a baby. 'If I die having this baby, it will be worth it,' she told her sister. Kenney, devastated by the death of his wife, also faced the practical problems involved with caring for an infant son; and he prevailed on Alice Maxey, a nurse and neighbor on Long Island, for help. The two were married almost a year later on June 5, 1923, in her hometown of Gardner, Maine, shortly before Kenney's return to Dayton, Ohio." Page 21 of MacArthur's airman: General George C. Kenney and the war in the southwest Pacific.

Another big clue is this bit from a 1946 biography encyclopedia: "By the first marriage he has a son, William Richardson Kenney, and by the second. a daughter, Julia Churchill Kenney."

I'm getting bits and pieces from Google searches.

• Julia Churchill Kenney got her B.A. in English at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1947. She was listed as being from Osborn, Ohio.[7] Thus she was born about 1925.
• William R. Kenney was born in August or September 1922; in August 1944 he was described as 22 years old in an article in Army News published in Darwin, Australia. "General Meets Son Long Way from Home". This same William R. Kenney was retired in 1977 when his dad died, and he wrote a letter to Air Force Magazine titled "Tribute to a Great Leader".
• The Armed Forces journal international: Volume 81, Issues 1-26, contains a piece from 1946 (I think) announcing the birth of a boy: "KENNEY—Born in Cincinnati, Ohio, [date not clear, perhaps 1 Jan 1946, or 6 Jun 1946] to Lt. and Mrs. William Richardson Kenney, AAF, a son, grandson of Lt. Gen. and Mrs. George C. Kenney and Maj. and Mrs. Harvey Shirley. USA. The baby will be named for General Kenney." I don't know when William R. Kenney married the daughter of Major Harvey Shirley.
• I see mentions of a George C. Kenney II who, with his wife Olga Kisakos-Kenney, gave works of art to various institutions including the Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, Cornell University, in 1995.[8][9] This is probably the grandson born in the '40s, "named for General Kenney". George C. Kenney II appears to have been director of an optics research group with Philips Laboratory in Briarcliff Manor, NY, working with lasers and digital optical storage. He collected clocks and was president and secretary of the American Section of the Antiquarian Horological Society ASAHS, according to a 7 July 1980 story in The New Yorker. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Binkie, this is fascinating stuff. I have started to expand the article. Feel free to change or expand anything you don't like. Keep digging! See if you can get to the bottom of this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Please refer to me as Bink, or Binkster, or Binksternet.

Regarding the tombstone in Arlington which reads "His Beloved Wife Sarah Elizabeth Kenney 1912–1970", the most upstanding explanation I can think of is that Kenney maybe divorced his second wife and married "Sarah Bell Elizabeth Kenney", as listed in the text of the Arlington website, or "Sarah Elizabeth somebody. The absence of a death date engraved on the tomb under General Kenney's name indicates to me that his remains were never put under that particular marker.

Perhaps coincidentally, Kenney's grandmother was named Sarah E. Kenney, according to Geni.com. Grandmother Kenney was born about 1851 and took part in the 1930 census out of Worcester, Massachusetts, according to Ancestry.com.

In Boston, the public library has a book they have not digitized but they will loan it out: The ancestors of General George C. Kenney, USAF (ret.), Captain Roland W. Kenney, USN (ret.) : a genealogy of the Kenney family of Boston, Braintree, Milton, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, Barrington, Nova Scotia, Brookline and Beverly, Mass. (1973). You can click on the link "Borrow" then begin to fill out the request. It might have information about a possible third marriage, being that it was published in 1973. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion going at Talk:George Kenney#What's with the Arlington tombstone?. See you there! Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say sorry for accidentally reverting you here. I fat fingered my iPad and apparently hit rollback by mistake. I saw the edit this morning under my contributions. I'm not even editing the article, but wanted to explain to you what happened. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No sweat! Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Books about parenting, which you created, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Parenting books. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever..
perhaps you will all get the point?
for Wikipedia to stop hard assing/harassing authors.
ie: such as use of a flagging system for Wikipedia "police actions".
wiki-bots are unlawful and should not be used to police copyrights.
complaints might be better off again on a flagging system.
after 1day I will remove your comments and threats from my talk page.
I have read them.
It is not my fault that Wikipedia process are arbitrary, snooty and often absurd.
all the people are offended by Wikipedia often bizarre requests and deletion of material.
so "ok buddy whatever you say"

do not respond to this response.
--Atomic49er (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Dude, you have repeatedly shown a complete lack of interest in conforming to Wikipedia's basic house style and guidelines. Your interest here appears to be one of promotion or the presentation of fringe concepts as mainstream. (See User:Atomic49er and Studio Instrument Rentals for promotion, and Talk:Amelia Earhart for fringe ideas.) I do not think you are a good fit for Wikipedia. There's nothing further for you here. I recommend you cease wasting your time and the time of others. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to give you a procedural warning not to edit other people's userpages, and especially not to war over them. You should go and read basic policy, or ask at the help desk. Penyulap ☏ 00:35, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)

There are perfectly good reasons to edit someone else's user page, for instance, removing/hiding categories from sandbox workpages, removing non-free images, etc. I think you are in error trying to keep your ridiculous redirect from userpage to articlespace. Binksternet (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would seem that you are by no means alone in wanting to war over my sockpuppets userpage. It would seem even admins, as well as a long list of editors all want to line up and have a play with it, and that has only been brought to a halt by locking of the page. They don't agree on policy, many won't discuss it on the policy pages as they will probably end up wrong in the end, so the page is sacrificed to my entourage's need for validation they can't find elsewhere. So seriously, please feel free to do as you please with my userpages, I give you permission to edit them as you please like everyone else I have given permission to, the only catch being anyone I have given an award to has veto over everyone else, and the bigger the award, the bigger the veto. Happy editing ! (oh and I left a question) Penyulap ☏ 00:33, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)

No thanks, I don't need the drama. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello! On American Exceptionalism, I don't support a merger between the Etymology and Origin sections. The former focuses on the history of the phrase, whereas the latter deals with the history of the concept. The two don't always overlap, and concepts similar to American exceptionalism have been expressed long before the term was ever coined. The same goes for the Etymology and American Communism sections. The section on American Communism details how the Lovestonian Communists considered America to be exceptional and exempt from Marx's theories of history, while the Etymology section only discusses the history of the term's usage by the Communists.--Europeanhistorian (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on List of television producers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  :- ) Don 14:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

TV producers speedily deleted because it's about web content? Ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Notification (Holy See) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Will you reconsider your nomination at [10]? This is an image I value highly, just as User:Anna Frodesiak and many other editors value their non-educational personal use images. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 21:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will go and stop the deletion request as best I can. Thanks for asking. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. INeverCry 00:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

hello,

thanks for your edits on that page. I wonder if you could borrow the books in the further reading section (I believe you live in UK). I searched for the books at worldcat and found many libraries, eg in Bedford, Birmingham, Halifax, Wembley, London. I hope you live somewhere near the cities listed there. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 09:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I live on the famous Bay, the one with the Dock. I was in the UK in May 2011 but not before or since. Binksternet (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Binksternet

First of all, I hope that I am doing this - sending you a message, I mean - in the right way.

Now, about your recent comment to me: fair enough! Perhaps I should say 'sorry' as well! On reflection, I appreciate the justness of your action (/of the general policy you are enforcing).

Jollynicholas1 (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The policy for putting people in a list is found at WP:LISTPEOPLE. Basically, people who are notable should be listed, ones who have a Wikipedia article about them. If there is no Wikipedia biography written—yet—then there should be a cited reference giving some indication that the person merits such a biography.

I see by discussion on your talk page that you are interested in having Wikipedia contain an article about yourself. The notability guideline for biographies is Wikipedia:Notability (people). Read that and see if you qualify. If so, you can ask for help with the biography by going to the WP:Teahouse. At Wikipedia:Your first article there is a wealth of good advice. At Wikipedia:Articles for creation you can try submitting your biography, with supporting references, to see if it works. Binksternet (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Santa Maria de Ovila know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 13, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 13, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Santa Maria de Ovila is a former Cistercian monastery built in Spain beginning in 1181 on the Tagus River near Trillo, Guadalajara, about 90 miles (140 km) northeast of Madrid. During prosperous times over the next four centuries, construction projects expanded and improved the small monastery. Its fortunes declined significantly in the 1700s, and in 1835 it was confiscated by the Spanish government and sold to private owners who used its buildings to shelter farm animals. American publisher William Randolph Hearst bought parts of the monastery in 1931 with the intention of using its stones in the construction of a grand and fanciful castle at Wyntoon, California, but after some 10,000 stones were removed and shipped, they were abandoned in San Francisco for decades. These stones are now in various locations around California: the old church portal has been reassembled at the University of San Francisco, and the chapter house is being reassembled by Trappist monks at the Abbey of New Clairvaux in Vina, California. In Spain, the new government of the Second Republic declared the monastery a National Monument in June 1931, but not in time to prevent the mass removal of stones. Today, the remnant buildings and walls stand on private farmland. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The only source I see for Wicklund's divorce is the WAPO Emily Bazelon review of Wicklund's book and it most definitely mentions abortion protests in connection with her divorce. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Binksternet... A vote was recently held regarding modification of the lead so it reads "usually before viability" in the lead. Just added my vote. Seems like consensus was reached awhile ago to modify the lead but nobody's enforcing it. Would you be bold enough to do it? I'd do it but have no desire for any edit war... Thx! Israell (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Strange that nobody has moved forward with that... Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

After spending countless hours of time on that article, I find it hard to believe that a straw poll of people that have yet to give any time at all to the article should have any bearing on whether or not the word "usually" is included. This article is much too difficult to expect that anyone new to the article would be able to make an educated vote. My IQ has been tested and I am in the upper 5% of the population and yet it took me a long time to grasp the depth and implications of words such as "death" and "usually". This word has been edit warred many times--is it really justifiable to start it all over again? Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Then we disagree. A purposeful late-term abortion is still called an abortion even if the fetus is viable, even if such a procedure is rare and illegal. In working together, I trust we can find more common ground than minor differences such as this one. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

On 13 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Notification (Holy See), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Catholic Church issued two notifications regarding the Divine Mercy devotion, the second one reversing the first? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Notification (Holy See). 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

	good tragic story
	Thank you for telling us a stunning tragic story about architecture and values, a pinnacle in your consistent writing and reviewing of Good articles, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Why, thank you! Such an eloquent award. Binksternet (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Four months from creation to being featured on the main page. Nicely done. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Four months and a year! The article was very quickly reviewed at GAN; it achieved GA level at four days of age. After that it was improved incrementally for more than a year by some very thorough reviewers. It is a team effort. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, seems I missed the year :). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at Michaelzeng7's talk page.
Message added 13:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear editor, Is it correct that I concluded from your response on July 16, 2012 that you think my article [3} is sufficient and that my proposal of July 15, is therefore not accepted? Thank you, Hans Peek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peek (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. I think your contributions are good. Please go to Talk:Compact Disc#A question and we can talk about it further. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet,

I would greatly appreciate your input on this issue over at the Misandry page. Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You are just WAY TOO FAST for me. Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha! I was working on it in parallel with you, before you came here with a request for assistance. Thus the appearance of speed! Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This notification is to inform you of a straw poll being conducted at the talk page of Shooting of Trayvon Martin, your comments would be welcome and appreciated on the allegations of witness #9. [11] Note: If you choose to comment, please mention you were contacted via this notification. Thanks!-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Binks, Sorry to bother you but can you tell me what I'm doing wrong that I get this Cite error? I tried both <references /> and ((Reflist)) but neither gets rid of it. Thanks --BoogaLouie (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

<ref name=sentenced > is not closed and so everything afterwards is considered part of that reference. Amend <ref name=sentenced > to <ref name=sentenced /> and it will work fine. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly as SunCreator said. I went through the new bio stub and copyedited it a bit. Binksternet (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Much thanks SunCreator and Binksternet --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Goodrich shootdown can be traced to Lt. Goichi Sumino (Christopher Shores, Air War for Burma Bloody Shambles vol.3) Duke's fate was not seen by any Allied party and can only assumed to have been caused by Igarashi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.71.69.163 (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

John Stanaway says that Goodrich was shot down by Oscar pilots and Duke was shot down by Zero pilots. Igarashi was never assigned to a Zero squadron. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A very frequent misidentification by Allied pilots. There were never Zeros or 'Army Zeros' in Burma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.71.69.163 (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I edited your comment on WP:ANI. I hope you don't mind, it was a bit too long so I added spaces between the links so that they continue on the next line. Arcandam (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No sweat. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I saw you got Santa Maria de Ovila to FA and wondered if you'd want to contribute your views to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/July 2012/Interview. Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's an interesting angle. Let me think about it for two days. What's the deadline? Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's written for a military history audience, but views from people working outside that subject can sometimes teach more. Hence why I've come to you! The deadline is variable, but we'd like to publish it as soon as possible, so the quicker the better. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick poke regarding this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking objectively at my real-life work schedule, and at the various exciting goings-on at articles on my watchlist, I think I will have to decline the opportunity. Binksternet (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That's fine! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Now User talk:Penyulap is disrupting the straw poll at Sgt Pepper. What should I do, can you help with this please? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest simply asking, on the article talkpage, if anyone else likes the old proposal more than the new proposal. Penyulap ☏ 01:58, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC)

No substantive changes were made, and everyone will know why you are doing this. You thought you were helping at AN/I, you weren't, you only made the situation worse, just as you are trying to do here. Anyway, this issue is at mediation anyhow, so the poll is actually somewhat irrelevent at this point. But still, you are disrupting it, and edit-warring there now, please stop. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think a good case could be made that you are wikihounding me at this point, and it would be very easy to show the intent of your actions this past week or so. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

He disagrees with you. Nothing sinister at all. Get over it. Radiopathy •talk• 02:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually Radiopathy, he !voted support, with a pretty decent rationale, in the very same poll. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you're being "wikihounded" a lot these days; could it be something you said? Radiopathy •talk• 03:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Do I need to add you to the list now as well Radio? This is almost mafia-esque really. That's quite the click you've got there. You people should be ashamed of yourselves, what bullies. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc is priceless. It's not just anyone who has enough talent to make both Bwilkins and myself look good on the same day, there is some serious talent here folks, enjoy it while it lasts. Penyulap ☏ 05:19, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, is that true that this D-NF340 with no ATRAC exception means that this MP3 CD Walkman Player allow to use AC adapter on the computer to transfer to audio music or to use to record a song with a CD-R/RW disc with burned MP3 files from CD-ROM or home recording deck, is that what it is or not? 74.72.39.176 (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No idea. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

would you like to expand on the policy you think applies to your modifications to the remarks of more than one editor here ? Penyulap ☏ 23:19, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

No, I need not expand on the policy as it speaks for itself. See WP:TALK. Pay special attention to the parts about "stay on topic", "stay objective" and "no insults". Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Speaks for itself" ? Not sure what you mean there. I don't mind that your describing the image as 'childish' although that would be npa to some people, but I don't think that Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band‎ is the appropriate forum to launch another deletion request on an image I have made. Please feel free to complain about the image in the appropriate place. Personally I don't like the alignment of the text in the upper portion of the image, if you mention that at the deletion request, if your making another one, I would not consider it a stroll down harassment street. Penyulap ☏ 00:24, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I don't wish to joust with you on my talk page. Please stay off of it. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise for my remarks, they were condescending and uncalled for and I regret them. Penyulap ☏ 16:43, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Just to note that I replaced with your prod with a speedy delete here: Biodynamic_Training_in_Coimbatore,_Tamil_Nadu,_India. It appears to be promotion of an unremarkable organization. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Good going. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User Mdna2012 insists on blanking out sourced info. It appears to be a die-hard fan, as from its contribs records shows it enjoys giving positive figures and eliminating unfavourable facts about Madonna. Please also raise the use of its inappropriate name to higher editors. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.21.150 (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As your block log clearly shows, you're on 1RR on all "Iranian poli"-related pages. [12]. So refrain from edit-warring on Mohammad Mosaddegh to remove well-sourced content from academics [13][14], without a consensus too, which might be treated by some admins as WP:Disruption. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh and you know very well that "democratically-elected" is a phrase used by the vast majority of the academic sources, and that's all that matters in Wikipedia, see WP:Weight or look up that phrase on Google Academics or Google Books if you have any doubts. Also, you know that your repeated earlier attempts to remove this phrase, were clearly rebuffed by most editors. Yet, you and someone else, decided to quietly remove it anyways, without a discussion or a consensus, and this is an unacceptable behavior. Contested changes on controversial topics should be clearly discussed and you know that. So please don't pretend otherwise. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

My 1RR period ended six months after it started on 13 January 2011. It has been out of effect for over a year now.

Richard Cottam writes, "Modern Iranian history has more than its share of mythology", a notion that applies very strongly to Mosaddegh and the 1953 coup. Regarding the phrase "democratically elected" to describe Mosaddegh taking the position of prime minister, there are some sources that use it, and a great many that do not. The actual "election" of Mosaddegh to the position of Prime Minister was the approval of him by the Iranian Parliament in late April 1951, an approval that was made official by the Shah's signature. There was no popular vote of the people of Iran, as you must be aware.

• Foreign policy expert E. A. Bayne in his book, Persian kingship in transition, writes, "After General Razmara's assassination in March 1951, I continued as adviser to his successor, Dr. Hussein Ala, until the virtual acclamation by the Iranian parliament of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh as premier later that spring."
• Alexander Hopkins McDannald in the 1952 Yearbook of the Encyclopedia Americana says about Mosaddegh, "on April 29, 1951, after the resignation of Premier Hussein Ala, he was named the new premier."
• The American University wrote in its 1964 Area Handbook for Iran that the "Majlis put pressure on the Shah to appoint Mossadegh as head of the Cabinet. Mossadegh's premiership lasted from April 1951..."
• Parviz Kambin wrote in his 2011 book, A History of the Iranian Plateau: Rise and Fall of an Empire, that "the shah recommended that Dr. Mosadegh be appointed the next prime minister. The shah requested that he form a new government and select his cabinet members as soon as was possible."
• Ambassador Henry F. Grady indicates that Mosaddegh was "chosen as prime minister".
• Alan W. Ford writes in The Anglo-Iranian Oil Dispute of 1951-1952 that on April 27, 1951, Hussein Ala's government fell, and the next day "Mossadegh accepts prime ministership after Senate and Majlis agree to his program of immediate eviction of AIOC."
• Francisco R. Parra writes in Oil Politics: A Modern History of Petroleum that "Mossadegh became prime minister at the head of a coalition of secular nationalist and religious parties."
• Ambassador John W. Limbert writes in his 2009 Negotiating With Iran: Wrestling the Ghosts of History that in late April 1951, Prime Minister Ala "stepped aside, and with the approval of both the parliament and the shah, Mosaddegh became prime minister with a mandate to implement oil nationalization." In an earlier book, 1987's Iran, at war with history, Limbert wrote, "When Hosein Ala, the new prime minister, refused to implement the new law, the Majles nominated, and the shah named, Mossadegh—then chairman of the joint parliamentary oil committee directing the government's negotiations with the British—prime minister on April 29, 1951."
• The magazine Newsweek wrote in 1952 in Newsweek's history of our times Volume 3, that "The good-willed but weak Shah, who was equally preoccupied with his beautiful new wife and his appendicitis, had to comply. He made Mossadegh Premier on April 29, 1951."
• Diplomat and scholar George Lenczowski wrote in 1978's Iran under the Pahlavis: "In an atmosphere of mounting excitement, the Shah was obliged to accept Dr. Mosaddegh as prime minister on April 29 and to sign his bill for the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company on May 2."
• Néstor Rivero Silva writes in Spanish in his book Imperio Tricefalo Petrolifero Corporativo, that Mosaddegh "assumed" the prime minister position: "...el presidente de su comité petrolero, Mossadegh, asumió el cargo de Primer Ministro."
• Patrick Clawson and Michael Rubin write in Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos: "Hussein Ala resigned after less than seven weeks in office. The shah next offered the premiership to Mussadiq... Mussadiq shocked everyone by accepting the premiership. Within three days of assuming his post..."
• Manucher and Roxane Farmanfarmaian wrote in Blood and Oil: "Word had gotten out that the Shah's next candidate for prime minister was the old eccentric Seyyed Zia. He was the British government's choice as well. To indicate how serious it considered the situation, AIOC abruptly cut wages in Abadan, igniting riots; two British frigates then moved into the Gulf, ostensibly to restore peace. Without mentioning nationalization Ambassador Shepherd let it be known that any further talks with AIOC would be conditional on Seyyed Zia s appointment. Seyyed Zia went to the palace—as was usual for the candidate about to be named premier—to wait with the Shah for Parliament's ratification of his appointment. In the Majles Jamal Emami, a prominent member of the right wing, faced a quandary. On the one hand was the powerful Mossadeq, whose enmity toward Seyyed Zia had already been played out once in Parliament with tears and finger-pointing. On the other was the Shah, whose candidate few trusted. How could he prevent an ongoing confrontation between these two that would permanently hobble the Majles at this critical cime? Public shame, Emami decided, was the best tactic. And so with a saturnine scowl, he took the podium and accused Mossadeq of hindering all parliamentary action he did not like. Mossadeq had brought the Majles to a standstill, Emami complained. He only criticized; never constructed. If he was going to set the course of the Majles and its oil policy, he should serve as prime minister. Emami's taunt was not a recommendation for Mossadeq's candidacy. Mossadeq had always disdained holding office, maintaining categorically that the only way to serve the people was as a deputy. He had never accepted previous offers of the premiership, and Emami was sure he would not accept this one. Emami was wrong. In a surprise move Mossadeq accepted and on May 1, 1951, it handed the Shah a fait accompli. It was a historic moment. For the first time a prime minister had been elected without the Shah's approval. The Shah had no option but to accept. It was a humiliation he would never forget."
• Mohammad Gholi Majd writes in Resistance to the Shah: Landowners and Ulama in Iran: "On 27 April 1951, the British closed the refinery in Abadan, and Ala resigned. Mossadeq became prime minister the next day..."
• Sociologist John Foran writes in A Century of Revolution: Social Movements in Iran: "On April 29, 1951, Musaddiq's premiership was recommended by the Majlis and received royal confirmation."
• Hellmut Braun, writing the chapter "Iran in the 19th and 20th Centuries" found in the book Muslim World: "A few weeks later, at the request of the Majlis, the Shah appointed him prime minister."
• CIA analyst Stephen C. Pelletière writes in Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Gulf: "On April 28, 1951—since no one wanted the prime ministership—Mosadeq's name was proposed, and he accepted; the shah (with great misgivings) agreed to the appointment."
• Historian Fakhreddin Azimi writes in The Quest for Democracy in Iran on pages 141–142, that "Mosaddeq's premiership followed the revival of the 'vote of inclination'—the practice of expressing prior parliamentary approval for prime ministerial candidates—which the Shah had disregarded since November 1948, but which Mosaddeq demanded."
• Abbas Milani writes in The Shah that on April 26, 1951, Mosaddegh accepted a nomination to the position of prime minister, the nomination made "by Jalal Imami, a member of the Majlis known for his close ties with the Shah."
• Heidelberg University professor of Political Science Marc J. O'Reilly writes in Unexceptional: America's Empire in the Persian Gulf, 1941-2007 that "Mossadeq came to power" in April 1951.
• Mark Gasiorowski writes in U.S. foreign policy and the Shah: building a client state in Iran: "In late April the Majles nominated Mosaddeq for the premiership and then voted to nationalize the oil industry."
• Gholam R. Afkhami writes in the The Life and Times of the Shah, "On the 28th, the Majlis endorsed Mosaddeq as the next prime minister, and the shah appointed him to the post the following day. In fact, Mosaddeq's becoming prime minister was encouraged, if not engineered, by the shah."
• Historian and Iranologist Elton L. Daniel writes in detail in his The History of Iran: [http://books.google.com/books?id=qmVUg_qHr2AC&pg=PA152 "Unable to control the Majles, Razmara's successor as prime minister, Hosayn Ala, resigned. It was rumored that the shah and the British were planning to bring back Sayyed Zia for the post, but this was preempted in an unusual way: One of the exasperated conservative members of the Majles, Jamal Emami, suggested half-facetiously that since Mosaddeq was responsible for pushing the legislation, he should also be the man to implement it as prime minister. Emami apparently thought that Mosaddeq was a chronic obstructionist who liked to criticize but would never take responsibility for anything and would fail if he did. To his surprise, Mosaddeq accepted the offer and the Majles quickly requested the shah appoint him, thus making it difficult for the shah to follow the normal procedure of offering a nomination himself. Yielding to the inevitable, but never forgetting or forgiving the slight, the shah accepted Mosaddeq as prime minister on April 29 and signed the nationalization bill on May 2."

To sum up, we see various sources describing Mosaddegh's gaining of the premiership as an appointment, as a selection, and as a result of a vote or acclamation of the parliament. In all cases the selection of Mosaddegh was ratified by the Shah. Mosaddegh was nominated and approved as prime minister through parliament and royal actions, not voted in by the Iranian people. The phrase "democratically elected" gives the false impression of a popular vote; it is a call to emotionalism, a grab at sympathy, the kind that we do not use in an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the input on the link that I had added here. You undid the edit stating it as a puffery, for my future reference how would I come to know if its appreciation or puffery as the resource was from one of the known Newspapers.Could you please guide me on this.

Thanks Telang.priya (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Telang.priya

The source says, "Tripathi’s Shiva Trilogy is already being touted as India’s Lord Of The Rings." So what? This is unencyclopedic; it does not help the reader understand either the Shiva Trilogy or the Lord of the Rings. It's a throwaway factoid. Much better would be a critic saying that a certain aspect of the Shiva Trilogy (description of aspect) is comparable to an aspect of the Lord of the Rings (description). I don't see such a source. The factoid delivered by itself is empty promotion which I called "puffery". Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for defending Feminism against the Nazi invasion! Kaldari (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You bet! The editor has a long history of NPOV violations. It's just a matter of time before he is indeffed. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That was quick! Dang. Binksternet (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You were blocked for three month, for engaging in WP:WIKIHOUNDING behavior. One of the conditions of your unblock, was the promise not to engage any further stalking of me. It appears that you've forgotten your promise to the admins, and you've once again engaged in stalking behavior, on Hooman Majd, an article that you have had no previous contributions on, and just showed up on, to make a sweeping revert of my edits there, which were policy-related and in line WP:BLP. Consider this a formal warning. Any further such infractions by you, and I will notify the admin whom you had promised, on record, to refrain from such behavior. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Malarkey. I have BoogaLouie's talk page on my watchlist and you sent him a nasty note about BLP violations. I went from BoogaLouie's talkpage to the article to find that the source represented the things BoogaLouie said it did, and not what you said. My involvement is through BoogaLouie's talkpage. I find your arguments weak, the ones that complain about the reliable source discussing the tweet. Tell me, who should be protected by the BLP guidelines, men who use patronizing language against women, or women who protect otherwise defenseless people from human rights abuses? Pick one. Binksternet (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You had the same weak excuses the last time, "I saw it on X or Y" doesn't justify stalking. The admins did not buy it the last time. Don't you remember? Your last block was 3 months, this time, it will be 6 months So take your chances, don't say that I didn't warn you though. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that warning was a good idea, especially since I had already asked a question about it and you are the person on the other side of the war. Surely with the experience you have you could have seen the benefit in waiting until they had answered my question, and not reverted their revert. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Your note did not give the essential warning about being blocked for disruption. Kurdo777's edit warring over the issue requires just such a warning. Binksternet (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I've been asked to intervene. I've warned Kurdo, but I note that you are also tending to revert without discussion. I'm prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to try to stop the edit-warring on this page and to seek resolution through discussion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for discussion. Binksternet (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You may have noticed this already but I guess you're one of the "editors ... trying to insert right-wing/neo-con libelous statements against a notable Iranian-American scholar, essentially calling him an agent of the Iranian regime, into the lead of his article" --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

On 29 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Isamu Kashiide, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Japanese fighter pilot Isamu Kashiide (pictured) shook the hand of a crewmember of one of the Boeing B-29 Superfortresses that he shot down? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Isamu Kashiide. 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Great work with this article! Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! A few new books have been published in English about Japanese flying aces, so finally we are getting better coverage in that direction. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

Can you please give me your opinion on what to do next with the Beatles RfC/straw polls? Should I request an admin to close them now, or should I wait a while longer. Do I need to request they be closed or will someone do that anyway? Thanks. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sit on your hands! I think the polls should stay open a little longer. It's been two weeks but 30 days is allowed. If there is no action for, say, three or four days in a row, you can suggest at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard that an uninvolved editor should review and close the polls, ideally the same editor for both. Of course, the mediation will continue as long as it needs, and its decision will have far-reaching effects, possibly overturning the polls. For that reason alone I feel no need to close the polls. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. Please let me know when the time comes when asking for closure would be appropriate. Or of course feel free to request said closures yourself. I don't mind keeping them open through MedCom, or whatever is best for the community. Thanks for your input once again. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.