User talk:Binarybits
Welcome
Hello, Binarybits, and
{{helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello there, Binarybits, and welcome to the Internet's largest free encyclopedia! We appreciate your contributions and hope you decide to stay. Please check out the
I also have to regretfully inform you that we unfortunately cannot accept your article titled "Crosby Kemper," because it is a biography on a person(s) who is not notable enough to merit an article here on Wikipedia. Sorry! If you have any questions about this or anything else, feel free to ask me. But please, if you do, talk to me kindly; I'd really appreciate it.
Happy Editing! -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 19:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
From the above article: [1] [2]
- ^ "Global Warming", Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress, ch. 45, p. 474
- 3 May 2003, as cited by ExxonSecrets.org
Bearian (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the edits. I think, with your nudging, we have improved this article significantly. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For your hard work in settling our dispute at, and working very hard to improve, Cato Institute. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC) |
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Button_sig.png)
Your Larry Summers' edits
Alex Gibney of 'The Daily Beast' did a documentary on Enron which was nominated for an Academy Award! Plus, he cites a book in his blog... He's also won an oscar and an emmy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorsteinVeblen (talk • contribs) 07:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, there's nothing "liberal" about Larry Summers! If Milton Friedman is your hero, then you are, by definition, conservative. It's not something which is controversial, it's just fact... Certainly, Larry would describe himself as conservative. In his Friedman article, he flat-out says he's not a Keynesian, but a "Friedmanite". Nothing wrong with that, but that means conservative.
ThorsteinVeblen (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your repeated efforts to add snarky little unsourced comments on Lawrence Summers are inappropriate. Your repeated efforts to insert the information that he is Jewish in inappropriate parts of the article may be somethign worse.Historicist (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- You should read the edit logs more carefully. Binarybits (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Nuvola_apps_important_yellow.svg/48px-Nuvola_apps_important_yellow.svg.png)
A
]by the way...
I think we both got engaged during the same week in October (although my bride-to-be and I were in NYC for a LvMI event, and nowhere near a pastoral view). Congratulations! DickClarkMises (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Binarybits (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Radley Balko
Please see my remarks on the talk page. Thanks! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Binarybits, I'm sure you're right. I know pretty much nothing about the subject myself -- just an article I stumbled upon while looking at recent changes -- but the soundness of all your arguments is pretty self-evident. I've raised an RFC, and am confident that the opposing viewpoint will not withstand wider scrutiny. NB I may not stick around this article to watch it myself; there's no particular need. — Alan✉ 17:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Binarybits (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Ashley Todd
FYI, you may be interested to see that
Editor requirements reminder
Editors are required to leave an 'edit summary'. Your recent edits have not had these.
Once disputed material has been re-added, the previous deleter cannot simply re-delete again (that starts edit wars). The issue must be taken to the discussion page. In other words, you would be in the wrong if you changed the page back to your previous edit. If you have an issue, take it up on the discussion page and seek a concensus of all editors before making your change again. Joe Hepperle (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
[Here] and [Here] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Hepperle (talk • contribs) 06:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Show-Me Institute
I have nominated Show-Me Institute, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Show-Me Institute. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Locke9k (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Jason Hannasch
April 2009
Cato
Should you really be editing that article? The info linked to on your user page suggests a clear COI. Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think I've been careful to avoid injecting POV, but feel free to challenge/revert any changes you think are inappropriate. Binarybits (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- No doubt you've been careful, but you should follow WP:COI and limit yourself to the talk page. Odd nature (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)]
- No doubt you've been careful, but you should follow
- This edit introduces a subtle shift in the POV of the statement. It may be accurate, but you should leave that sort of thing to editors without a COI. After all, it was discussed on the talk page - surely someone else could have suggested and approved the wording.
- This one creates the perception in the average reader's mind that Cato is actually neutral, which is clearly isn't. Could easily be taken as whitewashing.
- This is troubling, since you appear to be replacing one POV with the "official" Cato POV. Find a reliable, third-party source.
- Edit warring to support an edit which "labels" Cato's critics is clearly unacceptable, given your COI.
Those are you last five edits to Cato or its founder. All of them are worrying, given your COI. If that's your idea of being "careful" to avoid injecting POV, then you most clearly need to stay out of the article space on Cato-related articles. Guettarda (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- The first change was a response to a criticism of the POV of the previous wording that no one else had addressed in a couple of weeks. I would have been happy (and still would be) to have someone else suggest an alternative wording, but no one did so I tried to adjust the wording in a way that addressed the concerns raised. If you think the new wording is more favorable to Cato than the old (which wasn't my intention) please revert them and/or suggest new wording.
- I'm not seeing the problems with the second edit. The article text already says Cato is non-partisan, and as I've pointed out most of Cato's peer institutions (including ones like Heritage and CAP that are more clearly aligned with a major political party) are in that category.
- As far as the third edit goes, I barely know Ed Crane and I don't see how that edit casts Cato in a more favorable light.
- You have a point on the final two edits. Please revert those if you think my characterization is inaccurate or out of line with the rest of the article. Thanks. Binarybits (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, since you're on the lookout for COI problems, this page could use some attention. Binarybits (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters
Michael Milken edit
You recently edited the Michael Milken page and removed content which was being discussed on the Talk page. In order to prevent an edit war, please respond to the talk page with your justification. Thank you. --71.83.125.186 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Mention of you
Oops, I mentioned your name. So rather than re-write my comments, here's notification that your name is mentioned here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Malia_Obama Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
"Dictator"
Hello BinaryBits, nice to meet you. I've noticed over the last 2 weeks on my watchlist that you've added the "dictator" label to the following articles below:
Fidel Castro = "and dictator"
Josef Stalin = "which he ruled as a dictator" (no ref)
Mao Zedong = "ruled as a dictator" (no ref)
Kim Jong-il = "which he rules as a dictator" (no ref)
Vladimir Lenin = "established a single-party dictatorship" (no ref)
Now, why some (or all) of these labels may be true in the common parlance, adding a weighted term such as "dictator" should mandate a reference, and a display or rationale on the talk page in reference to the prevailing sources in order to demonstrate that the descriptor doesn't violate
- Most of these just seem obvious to me. Kim Jong-Il, for example, fits the definition of a dictator to a "T," and there's no shortage of reliable sources that describe him that way. The mere fact that some sources don't use the term doesn't mean that WP shouldn't. Binarybits (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- While I agree that Jong-il might seem "obvious" to you (and me for that matter), the purpose of Wikipedia is to represent the consensus of the WP:WTA. Similar to how Wiki strays from terms such as "terrorist/freedom fighter" or "liberator/oppressor" in the first line of an article as a declarative statement, use of "dictator" should probably at least accompany some sort of TP discussion or outline of rationale (and definitely a ref), so that users and readers can identify how the term came to be used in the article (this also protects it from hasty deletions & edit warring as it is firmly rooted with an accompanying TP consensus/basis). Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)]
- While I agree that Jong-il might seem "obvious" to you (and me for that matter), the purpose of Wikipedia is to represent the consensus of the
Articles for deletion nomination of Show-Me Institute
I have nominated Show-Me Institute, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Show-Me Institute (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Malia Ann Obama
You authored this a long time ago and since then a few people have done the same. Some want to blank it out. That is destructive! Kewlarticle (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Workweek
I was thinking about reverting [1] but then I noticed that you are affiliated with the Cato Institute. Would you please share your thoughts on http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/misc/worktime/workweek_debate.html here so I can understand where you are coming from on this? I want to point out that material included differing views from both sides of the political spectrum, and
Disambiguation link notification for February 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lawrence Summers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Endowment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
February 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Mitch McConnell, you may be blocked from editing. Your recent edits are inappropriate. As discussed in earlier on this talk page, you should provide edit summaries, refrain from adding unsourced material or removing sourced material (Cato & Summers), or injecting POV (Castro & Mao). These are five separate improper edits. Instead of five separate warnings, which would have justified a posting on ANI, I'll leave it at this "level 3" warning. In any event, please stop. – S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're talking about. On Cato, the article had listed 8 donors and I added the ninth donor listed in the annual report. The source is the annual report referenced earlier in the same paragraph. On Summers, I forgot to add the source and will do so. I'm pretty sure it's not generally against the rules to add unsourced material to Wikipedia. Binarybits (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- When I looked at the Cato edit, it was simply a removal of the reference, the addition of another donor, and a change in the language. Without an edit summary to explain, the changes were unjustified. (Your clarification certainly helps.) Thanks, also, for adding the reference on Summers. Frankly, I did not look at the sources removed or added. My main concern was the unexplained edits. Summaries are important! And then I saw that the messages about these same concerns from a while back, so my message is more of a reminder. Most importantly, you are incorrect if you think it is "not against the rules to add unsourced material". One of the core content policies is WP:RS allows us to carry out that policy. Happy editing. – S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)]
- When I looked at the Cato edit, it was simply a removal of the reference, the addition of another donor, and a change in the language. Without an edit summary to explain, the changes were unjustified. (Your clarification certainly helps.) Thanks, also, for adding the reference on Summers. Frankly, I did not look at the sources removed or added. My main concern was the unexplained edits. Summaries are important! And then I saw that the messages about these same concerns from a while back, so my message is more of a reminder. Most importantly, you are incorrect if you think it is "not against the rules to add unsourced material". One of the core content policies is
- OK, sorry about that. I'll try to document my edits better. Binarybits (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lawrence Summers, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Just two minutes earlier on your talk page you said you'd be more careful about these matters. The edit you made on Summers was most improper. – S. Rich (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Again, I don't think there's a rule against adding a sentence without a corresponding citation. If you look through the Summers page (or practically any other page on Wikipedia), you'll see a bunch of sentences that don't have citations next to them. Are you going to yell at all the people who added those sentences? You should chill out. Binarybits (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are lots and lots of cases where people add material to Wikipedia without providing a citation. In this case, I had trouble imagining anyone disagreeing with the sentence I added so it didn't seem necessary to find a supporting citation. In an ideal world I'd have time to dig up a citation but I still think adding the sentence is a net contribution to the page. If you disagree and want to revert the edit that's fine, but it's ridiculous to call this disruptive editing. Binarybits (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This is an AFD of an article you created. --Ego Hunter (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Binarybits. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
April 2017
- Fair point thanks! Binarybits (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Binarybits. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Binarybits. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Walter huang, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
- edit the page
- remove the text that looks like this:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
- save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Natureium (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Binarybits. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Present tense statements in articles
Hi, just a note regarding your remark here. The template {{when}} already leads to some explanations (see in particular Wikipedia:As of), but to add a bit more context: The basic problem is that we do not have control over when the statement will be read; especially in less widely read articles, such a sentence might not be updated for years. So a present tense claim that is correct right now might well become quite misleading for future readers of the same Wikipedia article. (And regarding this particular case, I'm sure you are aware that the office locations of tech companies are not always remaining the same, especially during the last two years.) I realize that this problem may a bit unfamiliar to folks who are accustomed to publishing their writings under a dateline. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification! Why would someone add this tag rather than just changing the tense and putting "in 2022?" Binarybits (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, for example because that would entail the additional work of ensuring that the statement is actually true at present time. And in this case it is not immediately clear that it is true. For example, if you follow the given citation - it doesn't help that it carries the apparently outdated note "Retrieved July 14, 2019" - the linked page currently does not mention Paris as an office location, and it also does not say explicitly that the headquarters are in San Francisco. I mean, one could then start to google, find that the company has job ads up for Paris right now, ponder whether that's sufficient as a reference, etc. Or analyze the page's revision history to find the edit where Paris had been added, and investigate whether maybe the cited page had listed Paris at that time (via the Wayback Machine), and so on. But that just illustrates how it usually takes much more time to fix such issues retroactively than it would have taken for the editors who originally added the information to include "as of" (and the source used) in the first place. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)]
- Well, for example because that would entail the additional work of ensuring that the statement is actually true at present time. And in this case it is not immediately clear that it is true. For example, if you follow the given citation - it doesn't help that it carries the apparently outdated note "Retrieved July 14, 2019" - the linked page currently does not mention Paris as an office location, and it also does not say explicitly that the headquarters are in San Francisco. I mean, one could then start to google, find that the company has job ads up for Paris right now, ponder whether that's
- Got it thanks! Binarybits (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
––FormalDude talk 14:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, can you explain this in plain English? I'm not sure what this means or what I should do about it. Binarybits (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review