User talk:Binksternet/Archive25

There is an unanswered point I brought up about David McCarthy's comment about "winning hearts and minds". Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I gave the article my Support. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Binksternet. Just seen your edit at Gramophone record and it occurs to me that that bit about

Some of the user's text might be valid but so much was not. I will take a look around to see if the audiocassette assertion can be supported by RS. Binksternet (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Bink. Please review

COI says "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." You are advancing outside interests rather than providing a neutral biography of Rothbard for the reader. Your behavior is perversely obstinate as evinced by your continual refusal to allow wording which portrays Rothbard primarily as an important leader of the Austrian School. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Bink, I have no such "outside interests." If you believe otherwise, please state whatever it is to which you refer. Per policy, even if you (erroneously) believe that I am biased, the policy clearly states that bias does not constitute COI, so your assertions of COI are not appropriate. You refer to my "continued refusal to allow wording...?" The fact is that I initiated an RfC -- that is the epitome of good WP process and has nothing to do with refusal. Please don't attack me. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet: FYI this long diff of a lot of removed Steeletrap talk page material does have discussion of possible academic conflict of interest for Steeletrap. Unless I missed it, SPECIFICO only has stated [at this diff I am an "Austrian School" economist trained before the Mises Institute... Now he could be a PhD economist who has worked as a dock worker for 30 years or he could be Paul Krugman. We don't know. In both cases the POV editing is so disruptive that it's not really necessary to prove COI unless it slaps us in the face with some obvious admission of COI. User:Carolmooredc 12:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

{{od}Bink: I've just seen your recent post on BLPN. I need to ask you: Please state your concerns and discuss text and policy without the repeated presumptions, aspersions, and disparagement of other editors. It is unnecessary and it disrupts the discussion of content which is necessary to resolution of disputed text and references. Please do not frame the discussion in terms of your beliefs about other editors, and please use diffs to document any specific behavior you believe is problematic. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, quick question: I went through, for the first time,

I am not seeing the article request at

WP:RA. If I had found it, I would have removed it because the article is now created. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Was it necessary to template a user of +4,500 edits -- Really?

Two things:

1 – That template is created automatically when you nominate a page for deletion. I had nothing to do with its format or content.

2 – I do template veteran users when I wish to do so, for instance to get their attention in a hurry. Check out the essay User:DESiegel/Template the regulars for some arguments supporting that stance. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thought there was an option to add detail or trim the more condescending stuff down before saving the page. Maybe not. I'm guessing you've fielded these concerns before judging by your quick link in defense of templating vet editors. That's your prerogative. Just figured it needed to be said.

†TE†Talk 22:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hm, actually, where is "Compact disc" coming from? And why does the article start off as "compact disc", then? The logo, at best, says "COMPACT disc", and it's pretty much a graphic-only thing like so many other things. Despatche (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I recommend discussing this at the article talk page. Lots of folks will chime in, eventually. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Why did you roll my tag back??? You found none of the suggestions I made useful. or you just personally hate me???User:JCHeverly 19:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I put your comments on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you any proof whatsoever for this bizarre claim/personal attack beyond the misinterpretations of a self-confessed POV-pusher? I challenged your identical ad-hom attack at RS/N and you've conveniently ignored it. You seem happy to heap baseless accusations on top of baseless accusations but don't seem keen to back them once they are queried. Despite the crocodile tears and feigned hysteria, Carol hasn't once been able to substantiate any of her claims about me and has since retracted some, admitted she didn't understand the context of others and misinterpreted other comments entirely. Yet you continue to attack me on the basis of her now-discredited "evidence" and won't provide any of your own. Stalwart111 01:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You started out as a helpful editor guiding Steeletrap through Wikipedia's minefields; you were the first person to edit Steeletrap's talk page on April 17, 2013, and also the first to edit Steeletrap's user page. You were doing well as a guide until April 20, 2013, when you suggested the "walled garden" interpretation of the Mises Institute biographies. You repeated this the next day, and the walled garden meme has ever since been part of the conversation between SPECIFICO, Steeletrap and yourself. Your own admitted lack of knowledge about economics was the problem—you did not bother to look further afield for more sources. By April 22 you were effectively in the camp of SPECIFICO and Steeletrap, agreeing with them that any book published by the Mises Institute should be removed. You repeatedly supported them in their removals of academic achievements, all while they added more negative information. Binksternet (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether you're being serious or deliberately obtuse and evasive. You personally attacked me with nothing more than your interpretation of Carol's bizarre claims (many since withdrawn, though she continued with different nonsense again today). Yes, I welcomed him, as I've done for many new editors into whom I've run at AFD. I've explained my position with regard to

WP:WALLED and walled garden

several times (you have conveniently skipped over that explanation; Carol, having used it to attack me, has now acknowledged she didn't understand it at all). I didn't agree with them - they agreed with me.

Did you even read that diff you posted? All I suggested was that they "seem[ed] like valid concerns". The stuff before that was written by SPECIFICO. Prior to that, I raised a broad concern about a small group of articles being a closed system (a walled garden) based on their common sourcing, circular referencing and common genesis (what you childishly refer to as a "meme").

You skim-read (from the looks of it) pages and pages and pages of discussion, decided you liked Carol's completely unsubstantiated accusations and decided to remake them somewhere else in a more coherent fashion (something she has so far failed to do). I maintain you have absolutely no basis for your claims:

1. That I have suggested that, "anybody connected with the Mises Institute should not be counted as reliable sources". Especially since I have argued the opposite several times, including with Steeletrap and SPECIFICO.

2. With regard to any of the conclusions you drew from this discussion which you seem to have completely misinterpreted.

3. That I have argued anything with regard to the massive list of articles you claim I have included in my commentary, despite the fact that I've never even read, let alone edited, most of them.

4. That I have anywhere been responsible for, "unbalancing some biographies of people associated with the Mises Institute".

Do you have anything at all to substantiate your ridiculous personal attacks beyond Carol's own (and now completely discredited) personal attacks? Or did it just seem like a fun thing to do at the time? Beyond anything else (given you "evidence" above), how is my highlighting a concept/user essay justification enough for your accusations (especially at numbers 1, 3 and 4 above)? Stalwart111 09:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we may have a

WP:Competence issue on our hands, Stalwart. The constant personal attacks and erroneous accusations (in the case of carol, so blatantly erroneous that they are often "retracted") from user:Binksternet and user:carolmooredc are making it impossible for us to effectively function as editors in these Misesian articles. You are for instance accused of wanting to delete all Misesian sources from Wikipedia (a position no one has endorsed) because you asked user:SPECIFICO to specify inappropriate or "bad" sources that should be removed from Mises articles. (When you asked that question, you had not endorsed her conception of "bad" sources; and afterwards you maintained strong disagreements.) Steeletrap (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You are free to think what you like about my competence, but you should note I have developed a very wide range of high- and top-quality articles for Wikipedia, many of which are on topics that were entirely new to me at the beginning of my writing. I'm a quick study and I'm confident if I began to write about, say, Murray Rothbard, I would be able to get the career and the controversy across to the reader in a clear and straightforward manner. Right now I have a lot of other tasks in real life and on Wikipedia so I have not been writing about the Austrians. My main problem with you and SPECIFICO (and Stalwart111 as enabler) is the vitriol you demonstrate against the Misesians who you work to minimize or muzzle. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Bink: You really need to stop falsely attributing undocumented actions and bad faith motives to other editors. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by to visit. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Matched only by the vitriol you and Carol demonstrate against fellow editors. Stalwart111 02:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you supported FAC1, your opinion is quite welcome at

First off, thanks much for the review. Your suggestions have already improved the quality of the article. Regarding en and em dashes, can you please provide a little more detail/examples. This is one area where it takes me ten times as much effort as others because my eyes have trouble spotting the problems. Also, FWIW, I never use dashes myself, so any that are in the article were added by others. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

For me, it takes ten times as much effort to explain the problem. I will instead jump in and correct it. The spaced en dash is somewhat more British than the unspaced em dash, so I will homogenize the article using the former. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The image was apparently removed by you, I don't think that's a good reason to remove it only because the month is usually hot. I found a source that has used the same image to represent the coup: [13] (the third image, see also the other two images in which people have worn coats) so I think we can use the image. By the way, I removed the image that you added at the lead, because that was obviously

What makes you say that the photo of Tehran men celebrating on at tank and in the street is undue weight? The street protesters were the reason that the coup succeeded. They were an essential part of the coup. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

:) My main comment is about the previous image and that it was a valid picture, as we have a source for it now (forget the rest of the comment for now) --Z 17:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would rather see the men-on-tank image returned to the article. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the accidental rollback! Larger fingers, small mobile screen. a13ean (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No sweat! Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Those street protestors who captured Mossadegh's huose etc. and were an essential part of the coup, were a bunch of CIA-paied thugs.[14] Putting an image of "Iranian people celebrating" the coup at the beggining of the article looks like a propaganda to me. --Z 06:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There were a few paid thugs but a lot more unpaid citizens in the streets. The first coup attempt failed on the night of August 15. There were thousands of protesters in the streets of Tehran on the morning of August 16, and they can be grouped into three main categories: supporters of the National Front, supporters of the Tudeh Party, and unaffiliated civilians. According to Mark J. Gasiorowski, about $50,000 was spent by the CIA to hire street protesters posing as Tudeh Party members who "then began to attack symbols of monarchy on August 17" in an attempt to destabilize the situation. There were also actual Tudeh members in this crowd. Maziar Behrooz writes that "a broad array of emotionally charged, spontaneous activities" happened in the streets of Tehran during August 16–18.[15] Later interviews of actual Tudeh Party members who were demonstrating in the streets show that they were unaware of any fake Tudeh protesters paid by the CIA. It is unclear how successful was the CIA's $50,000, whether it had zero influence, a little influence, or a lot of influence. Either way, the money served only as a kernel or trigger of protest which was greatly expanded by spontaneous protesters who were not paid. You would hardly believe it today but lots of Iranian people were unhappy with Mosaddegh's actions by August 1953.

During talks on August 17, the Tudeh Party decided to radically switch positions from supporting the Pahlavi monarchy through the constitutional government headed by Mosaddegh, to calling for the overthrow of the monarchy. Worried about an overthrow attempt, the government ordered the military into the streets to arrest hundreds of Tudeh leaders. By the evening of August 18, Mosaddegh ordered the military to clear the streets of all protesters. The CIA had given up the coup by this time—they were packing up and leaving rather than directing further coup attempts. On August 19, pro-Shah demonstrators (who did not have any additional CIA payments or instructions) filled the streets, preventing the Tudeh or National Front from defending Mosaddegh, and Mosaddegh was overthrown. Abbas Milani says many of these new protesters were stimulated into action by the clerics, who were afraid of the irreligious ideas put forward by the communistic Tudeh, and preferred the traditional monarchy to communist revolution.

So the pro-Shah street protesters were the ones who made coup happen. The photo shows them celebrating. It is quite appropriate for the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please to not remove the added B-Roll trailer section. This is the most mainstream use of the term today and the most likely reason people would search for it providing a need functional use which is why we edit. If you think the use of the term is inappropriate complain to the movie studios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeterson101 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia relies on WP:Reliable sources to support facts such as you are asserting here. Personally, I'm an audio engineer and I hear the term b-roll refer to footage that is aimed at audience and scenery rather than at the main subject of interest. Despite yours and my interpretations, the point is that we need a reliable source or your paragraph will be removed. The link you provided as a typical B-roll trailer proves nothing about it being typical, so it should be removed even if you supply a reliable source for the paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this is a note to inform you that a page in which you have previously shown interest,

Please respond to my message so that I have some guidance to do this right. Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilannassimi (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"Reputable" sources should actually be

WP:SECONDARY

sources to support the facts.

The promotional tone violates Wikipedia's

WP:PEACOCK guideline, part of the Manual of Style. For instance, your addition to Charitybuzz

called Fueled "a leading mobile and web app developing company", which is puffery, and you described the app as "sleek and effortless"—more puffery.

For

WP:ROUTINE

.

For

Discovery Communications, you added text sourced only to Fueled's own PR announcements. Secondary sources are needed. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Noted. I will try again and follow your advice. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilannassimi (talk • contribs) 17:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I expect that you know that your edits at Attack on Pearl Harbor constitute unnecessary edit warring. I blocked the other guy because he clearly has a history of edit warring, but you're not helping either. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, and thank you for blocking CJK. I see that he was behaving poorly at Talk:Alger Hiss and Talk:Iraq War, which does not give him much leeway. I'm sorry I did not bring the dispute to the article's talk page sooner. Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		One simple edit, which could have been done – so easily – by someone else, has earned you this Barnstar. Again, I say, Bravo! – S. Rich (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I like that: the Barnstar of Condemnation of Other, Because Other Has Not Lifted a Finger, But You Came In and Did His Job. Definitely worth a smile. :)

Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is now being reviewed at Talk:Hammond organ/GA1, and there's a laundry list of issues. I'm kind of mostly offline for the next few days, so if you fancy helping tackling some of them, that would be very much appreciate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I will keep an eye out. Binksternet (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bink. Please revert your mass deletion of material on

Ah, I see your point, that the subsequent Callahan paragraph makes no sense without the preceding paragraph. Let me figure out what would be a better approach for neutral balance and less weight. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] I hope I am mistaken Bink, but I see your response as mostly ignoring policy based concerns: i.e. your mass-deletion of material quoted and addressed in high quality RS. Please undo that deletion immediately, or I will be forced to regard your conduct as disruptive. Steeletrap (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Bink, please undo your erroneous deletion and propose any preferred alternative on talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Bink, I have posted to RSN regarding your (and other users') deletion or distortion of the RS content on Rothbard's view of children's rights. See: here.

Hi Binksternet -- appreciate your comments regarding the "Dispute With AllMusic" section on Bryan Adams' wikipedia entry. I mistakenly created that section as an anonymous user w/IP, but have since found my original Wikipedia account and will be using that from now on. Please understand that the GetSatisfication.com/AllMusic forum page is the official AllMusic forum site, and is moderated by official AllMusic representatives, two of whom (Zac J. and Dawn G.) have both contributed to the discussion and given full explanation for why AllMusic had to remove Adams's content.

I have requested of Zac and Dawn that they create an official page on allmusic.com to address this subject -- even if it is a standalone, unlinked page, since the legal request from Adams likely precludes their even being able to create a page for him whatsoever. That said, pending this page creation, I'd request that you keep this section of Bryan Adams's Wikipedia page up, as it is definitively verifiable fact that a search for Bryan Adams in Allmusic's search engine turns up nothing for him (this was referenced with URL), along with the AllMusic representatives' official explanation of the matter (also referenced with URL).

I do agree that the more credible the source, the better -- and for that reason, I submitted that request to AllMusic to have a page addressing this on allmusic.com, as well as getsatisfaction.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supra92 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The other editor has never edited anything except this article and openly dislikes the subject and uses false edit summaries and while claiming to remove "Contentious material" actually added memorial pages to the dead cops and removed referenced material. I am not edit warring I am stopping a biased vandal from destroying an article he doesn't like. 108.94.154.235 (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

How come only I got a warning? 108.94.154.235 (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I warned the other editor. If he continues with his removals you can ask for page protection at

WP:BLP, dealing with biographies of living persons. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow is using the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement case[16] in an attempt to get me banned by making extensive use of my editing at Ugg boots as evidence of bad behavior. Specifically "WLRoss eventually became aggressively involved in the content dispute against Phoenix and Winslow and other editors at Ugg boots and related articles in October 2011, and continued the content dispute for the next two years" and the recent "improper closure" Rfc at the Ugg boots trademark dispute article. I'm not asking you to comment as I think the diffs I posted speak for themselves but I thought this dispute may interest you. Wayne (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to step in where I don't know the history. Did you or did you not follow him to hound him?[17] I think P&W pushes an unnecessarily fractious interaction style which is unhealthy for Wikipedia. I think he should be reined in, but this must be done according to the rules. I think his continued targeting of you will turn people against him. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I didn't know that page existed. If anything the diffs he uses there shows my neutrality and his claims are full of errors...for example I didn't "join forces" with Xenophrenic on his Talk page, I gave him a word of support regarding his RFC/U over the Anthony Weiner article but took no part in the RFC/U itself. Phoenix and Winslow says In March 2011 he returned to Ugg boots...on the other side in a content dispute. In fact, the Ugg boot content dispute in question did not occur until October - December 2011, seven months after I returned to the article and he was a lone editor in a dispute against five or six other editors. The timeline of interaction is as follows. We first met at the Ugg boots article where he was a SPA for two years until he began editing the Franklin article, I was already a long time editor at the Franklin article when he went there where he was the sole editor arguing for deletion of mention that King was a prominent Republican and his objections to the article escalated when he failed to get that edit. I later created the Ugg boots trademark dispute article and User:North8000 did the first good article review which was interrupted by Phoenix and Winslow's objection. I found the Tea Party article mentioned on North8000's Talk page so went and had a look. I wasn't really aware that Phoenix and Winslow was editing the article until I went there and even then didn't think there was any problem as it was the first and only time I had turned up at an article after him. As TPM astroturfing was big news in my local newspaper at that time, I made a few comments on that subject when Phoenix and Winslow turned up claiming I was stalking him. I stopped editing on the Talk page and six weeks later an editor posted about the relevance of the TPM's call to repeal the 17th Amendment so I replied to him that the 14th and 16th Amendments were also mentioned and gave him the sources that said it was part of the TPM agenda. There was no dispute, I made no edit suggestions and Phoenix and Winslow never took part in that discussion. As you can see, I can also make the argument that Phoenix and Winslow stalked me from Ugg to Franklin and also to several Australian company pages but as the Aussie companies were manufacturers of Ugg boots those are related to the Ugg boot article so don't count. Wayne (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that puts the boot on the other foot. I can see where P&W should be looking for a boomerang if he keeps pushing the hounding button. Binksternet (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what you are looking for in the Bryan Adams issue. It's demonstrably true that Bryan Adams has been systematically erased from Rovi: I encountered it when working on the various charting templates, during which I discovered that Adams is now reported as never having released any albums or singles on either AllMusic or Billboard (which licenses its own chart data back from Rovi). The source being used is an official account from an AllMusic employee. I can see a case that there's a bit of OR going on in the article, and maybe it should be toned down to something more like "Adams has been removed from the Rovi database, and all AllMusic will state is ..." or something of the kind, but complete eradication is sufficiently unusual as to warrant mention.

While forums and tweets aren't the greatest of sources, https://getsatisfaction.com/allmusic/topics/bryan_adams_and_his_albums_are_not_findable_in_the_search_engine is from the official AllMusic role account, and https://twitter.com/allmusic/statuses/259291182931275776 is from the offical AllMusic twitter account.—Kww(talk) 18:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the truth of the situation, that Adams is no longer to be found on Allmusic, and that Allmusic employees have given an all-too-brief explanation.

The problem is that a search query which returns no Adams albums and a discussion board explanation are not sufficient to satisfy the

WP:BLP. What is needed is a reliable reporter writing about the case. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you consider the statements from AllMusic on Twitter and their support forum to be sufficiently reliable regarding AllMusic's actions?—Kww(talk) 23:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS applies here. Allmusic talking about Adams on the Allmusic online forum is self-published. What is needed is a secondary source. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to mention that I am sorry to trouble you with this -- I am unhappy that it came to this. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You are way off base with the "cabal" accusation. How disappointing. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, did you perhaps misread Jytdog's comment? Nowhere does he accuse you of cabal-like behavior, but is complaining that another user has accused both of you... Nevermind, @User:Jytdog, mentioning Binksternet's name in this context appears counterproductive. Despite any past disagreements you have had on the BP article, I see no evidence he has done anything wrong in relation to this issue (GMO).

Binkster, I apologized at the ANI and do so here again, and I corrected what I wrote. You were not central to the BP thing at all and your involvement was so peripheral that i should not have mentioned you at all. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet,

When you commented on my talk page, you said that Serial commas are not required and wikipedia recommends minimal modern approach to commas. I only did it to add clarity and consistency to the article since most articles use serial commas. Were you trying to tell me to not use serial commas?

thank you, Robert (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct. I was trying to tell you not to add serial commas to various articles which consistently do not use them. Binksternet (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So you really think this (or this) is a

Yawar Ahsan Mazhar is a published author on the topic of Pakistani Air Force jets, which is why I consider him a good source, no matter that the forum was an online forum. You can see an earlier discussion about this issue at Talk:Rashid_Minhas#Did_Minhas_.22Crash.22_the_plane.3F. In that thread there is an old URL which has gone bad. Here is the archived version which shows Mazhar's article written for the German magazine Flieger Revue. The article is titled "F-104 Starfighter im Kampfeinsatz bei der pakistanischen Luftwaffe" ("F-104 Starfighter in combat at the Pakistan Air Force"). This same article is used as a reference in the German Wikipedia article on the MIG-21: de:Mikojan-Gurewitsch MiG-21. Thus Mazhar is not just some unknown forum participant.

The other side of the coin is that nobody really knows how the official story was put together, so it is not so much of a stretch for Mazhar to challenge it. The official story has very little detail, and it includes conjecture and also nationalism for propaganda purposes. It is of dubious truthfulness. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks once again for recreating the article on Ted Andrews. And... I was wondering if you could take a look at Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart. What bothers me is that the time frame, type of IMO draconian editing, and general deletionist history of the editor involved looks so much like that of Qworty, that I wonder if this is a sock. In any event, the wholesale deletion of entire sections, constituting most of the article, then tagging the rest, looks awfully familiar (and if this IS a sock many other articles may be affected). Rosencomet (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A quick look at the page's history did not make any Qworty socks jump out as obvious. The large deletion and tagging looks like good faith cleanup work to me.

At any rate, I will check into the biography and see if I can add something worth keeping. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Bink. Your latest reversion (1) on Rothbard is troublesome to say the least, particularly because I have explained what the passage says to you on numerous occasions.

Rothbard writes, in clear English, that he supports "the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die". He does specifically discuss the case of letting a deformed baby die, but this is merely a (less controversial) example which he puts to rhetorical use to lead into the broader (more controversial) principle quoted above. This is an objective matter of comprehension. You continue to objectively misunderstand the passage. This misunderstanding also constitutes OR, since (my/the correct) interpretation you keep reverting is sourced by the peer-reviewed Politics, Philosophy and Economics RS, while your misunderstanding is sourced by nothing.

You seem to believe that use of an example to illustrate a principle (the right for police to torture applies in the case of murder; or the right of parents to let their babies die applies in the case of deformity) means that the principle only applies to that example. That's just logically fallacious. Please try to understand this distinction before proceeding further on the Rothbard article. Steeletrap (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

the attempt to get the non PC blog discussion back on a rational course. Cheers!

Sometimes the chaff gets in the way of the wheat. Or perhaps the barley and hops. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have had dark Leffe. A noble brew. This looks better :) A fine chaff clearer! Regards

talk) 04:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Binksternet, please if you could kindly spare some time and drop in your thoughts on the new steps, moderated by admin Nick-D, that are being taken to resolve the dispute regarding blitzkrieg on the Battle of Kursk article. EyeTruth (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting earlier. Unfortunately, thanks to the ploy of a certain editor, the whole thing has bugged down again into a long essay of discussion and drama. But this time around Nick-D has suggested that a poll on the suggested wordings would be the best way to avoid the whole drama and reach a conclusion. All you need to do this time around is to place your vote for whichever version you think is preferable. The LINK. EyeTruth (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This "certain editors' ploy" has succeeded. A final decision is now being acted upon, with a voting structure. A metaphorical kick up the rear works wonders sometimes. Cheers!

talk) 17:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The kick up the rear always work. But this "certain editor" may not be who I think you imply it to be. EyeTruth (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Its ok. I have figured it out. Bit slow today :/ Cheers!

talk) 19:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Skyfall https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E69eKPfS1ic The End https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZOMcrk2Cqc Star Trek 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQutDk1yecI Wolverine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfaueL_QQC0 Ganster Squad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8qfnyi2BeM Silver Lining Playbook https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxWXRHW9otI Pacific Rim https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRRSeOYjIjc World War Z https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylSh0dOsd8Q IRON Man 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl_P0ZhG7P8 G.I. Joe: Retaliation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvYOyY2vVno

I am not sure why you are fighting this. I can give you 100 more examples if that's what it takes to convince you that this is how the term is often used. If you feel it is incomplete or poorly written edit away. However by deleting it you are inhibiting the practical use of a website you have spent alot of time contributing to. Please stop vandalizing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeterson101 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source as it accepts user-generated text and content. The concept of "B-Roll" is only tangential to the promotional videos you are pointing to. What these promotional links feature is usually footage from a camera positioned as an observer of the filmmaking process, the kind used in "the making of" types of documentaries that appear as extra features on many DVDs. This is not "B-Roll" because it is not supplementary footage intended for cutting into a main shot. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

I have a question that I thought you might be able to help me with, since you've been around here a while. Recently i've become a thorn in the side of some folks dealing with the GMO issue. Now, i have had a couple visits to random articles that I work on a bit, where one of the folks from the MAM battleground has decided to come make disruptive edits. I am not sure the word for this type of activity, but wanted to know how I would go about having it stopped. Is there a notice i can put on my talk page to have an Admin come help, or something like that? Thanks, petrarchan47tc 01:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about

WP:ANI with diffs of the person following your to two or three articles. If you would like to use an editor interaction tool, try putting the name of the other editor at the very end of this URL, following the final equals sign: http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/editorinteract.cgi?user1=Petrarchan47&user2= I see by your recent contributions that you are concerned about Thargor Orlando, so this is the editor interaction chart for you and him. It shows that Thargor Orlando visited the Riki Ott page one minute after you did, and that he edited the following articles after you did: March Against Monsanto and Hedges v. Obama. On the other hand, he was at the Dahr Jamail

article one day before you.

I hope your ANI report stops the hounding. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Very much appreciate the info, Binksternet. Though noticeboards are the last place I want to be. Good God, this group is turning wiki into a fricking playground: screw the encyclopedia, we have games to play and revenge to dole out! petrarchan47tc 19:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Binkster, let's do some factchecking here, shall we? I visited the Riki Ott page six weeks after Petrarchan47, not one day, and certainly not one minute..[18] [19]. I've been involved at MAM for months, my first edit was in June.[20] My first edit to Hedges was in March[21], and what Petra is complaining about happened was five days old.[22] You now accuse me of "hounding" in an unfounded way because you don't know how to read the editor interaction tool, which is now creating a pattern of unfounded, unsubstantiated attacks on my character, my edits, and my motives from you. This is a formal request for you to stop doing so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I see your "formal request" but there is no basis for you stopping me from helping Petrarchan47 with a question of advice about editor interaction. The interaction tool shows that Petrarchan47 edited the Riki Ott biography before you ever did, and it also shows that you edited the article approximately one minute after one of Petra's edits. If Petrarchan47 wants to use this information to file a complaint against you then that option is still available. I will probably comment on the discussion, too—I don't see any particularly chilling effect your warning might have on me. You know, the tool works both ways, which I already told Petrarchan47. You might want to see how you are being followed, for the boomerang. My advice to the both of you is to stop snooping into each others' edits. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You have no evidence that I'm snooping into anyone's edits, that's the point. You have a habit of making wild, baseless accusations. This is not the first time you've done so to me. The correct response is to apologize. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The context here is that this is my talk page and I was advising Petrarchan47 on what to do if hounding is suspected. You are welcome to observe and comment but not to stop me from giving advice on my talk page. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

When your advice is based on misinformation about another editor, I would expect someone to be counseled on it. The more false accusations you make, the worse it will get. That's my advice for you on your talk page. It's awfully strange that your response here is to be more combative than to correct the problem, but I can't force you to act a certain way. Have a good day. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You asked for my apology. Requested apologies are rarely worth a damn—they should be spontaneous. I did not offer an apology because I do not appreciate being directed by you, and at any rate I did not feel sorry for looking into Petrarchan47's request and offering my advice. Is that what you perceive as combative behavior? Me failing to apologize when you asked for it? Your threshold for combat is lower than mine. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't think repeated unfounded claims about your fellow editors are combative, I'm at a loss as to what else to tell you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are at a loss. There are no repeated unfounded claims here, just advice to Petrarchan47 which included a boomerang warning. Let it go. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you did not recommend that I be reported for "hounding" based on your misreading of the toolserver app? No one's going crazy, so there's no need to chill. I just want to be sure you know what it is you're doing, or at least have it on record that you do not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My goodness, you are the tiresome type. I laid out options for Petrarchan47; I did not recommend anything. I will not be analyzing myself further for your benefit. If it is an inquisition you wish to participate in, select another venue than my talk page. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll take your shovel now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The attempts to chill discussion only make me speak out more. What appears to be happening is that Thargor has decided to remove mentions of Truthout as a source, and to go ahead and rewrite parts of articles that had used it, but without any knowledge of or study of the subject, which is very evident at the Riki Ott page. I'm not following him around, so don't know where else this is happening. He left the Ott page with improperly formatted refs, and warned me that I've reverted him three times (so I can't fix his mistakes). He demands that I convince him that the former content was valid before fixing his vandalism. I want no more interactions with him so have left the Ott page for others to deal with. But it isn't only Truthout as a source that bothers him, Thargor removed the fact that Dahr Jamail had written for the site for years. He has thus far not given me an explanation. petrarchan47tc 21:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that this account fails the

Maybe. I've been wondering about this one. Can you show diffs comparing the same style or the same text changes? Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I want to appeal to you as San Francisco Bay Area task force member. There is an article I tried to write: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Achronix. Can you review it and check is the company notable enought? I think it can be not correct to move the article myself without third-party check. Or, if you can't review the article, where can I notify other members of task force to review it? Thanks `a5b (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the company meets

WP:GNG (general notability requirements) because of non-trivial coverage in depth in at least two national publications. There should be some changes made to the article, especially stating right at the top why the company is notable. Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I was editing the biography of Tyrone Hayes today because I was sent an article from Chronicles of Higher Ed that said his lab funding was cut. In reviewing that article history and its talk page and other various links, I think I have found something very odd. This editor seems to be either a spoof account, a sock maybe (?), or a person editing their own biography on Wikipedia. Whoever they are, they also left a rather incoherent message on User talk:AcademicReviewer. I have never had anything like this come up before, would appreciate your review and assistance. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Tyrone Hayes has personally recognized falsehoods in his biography and has stepped in to correct them. I see the article has a lot of attack characteristics in it, with poor sourcing. I will try and fix this problem. These things usually settle down in favor of a very conservative presentation, that is, in favor of the living person who is the subject of the biography. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Another possibility is that someone sympathetic to Hayes created the account to correct the Hayes biography. I say this after reading some interviews of Hayes and comparing his style to that of the editor Thereisonlyonetyrone, and seeing a mismatch. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate your help on this. I also see the style mismatch, but I can't tell if its someone out to cause trouble or someone out to fix trouble. Either way, I think a more experienced hand through the material would be a blessing. Thereisonlyonetyrone, also deleted the photo link today, apparently that's not a good image - although it was on commons just sitting there. Perhaps there are copyright issues with it? Again, something beyond my ability to tell and I'm concerned also about my personal feelings in the situation. Having been bullied, I feel really sorry for anyone who gets attacked by others and lose my

WP:NPOV in favor of the victim. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you by chance know if there is a list of the specific task force sub projects like the Bay Area Task Force? Specifically looking to see if there is a task force for Sacramento. Any help you can provide would be great!--Mark 17:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The closest existing task force is Wikipedia:WikiProject California/California Delta task force, which appears to be inactive since 2010. There was a 2009 discussion which touched upon a task force for Sacramento alone but enthusiasm was lacking: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Archive 5#New Sacramento task force?. If you wanted to get such a task force going you should know that the survival of these things depends on the continuing energy of at least one person, otherwise they end up inactive. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Very true. I have seen these things die a slow and painful death, but a new editor has expressed interest in such a task force and I agree that one could be useful. Thank you very much for the information. I did notice the delta task force when trying to search but the discussion you linked I did not find. I will pass this along and see if there is enough interest to attempt this again. Thanks!--Mark 18:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Just curious. What tipped you off that the ip 66.31.108.68 works for Bose, rather than some fan? Still, the sources are legit. Would like more positive, reliable source items so we can ditch the NPOV tag. Mattnad (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to the tiny town of Newton Center, Massachusetss, where Bose has its headquarters on 6 Peach Tree Lane. I assumed a conflict of interest immediately, and I stand by my position even though it was a gut reaction.

Of course some positive reviews could go in the article. There are also negative reviews that could be added, for instance Lou Reed saying he would pay money not to listen to Bose. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd love that Lou Reed quote, but Amar might have a stroke and then sue wikipedia.Mattnad (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Amar went to his reward last month, so he's past the stroke stage. Binksternet (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you please weigh in at

Mr. Binksternet, you welcomed me to Wikipedia when I created an account a while back, which I thought was quite kind. I made a couple of edits, but I am not yet a confirmed user and have a photo I think would be preferable for Judge Walker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_Walker). I contacted the photographer and got a Wikipedia Declaration of consent for all enquiries. This new photo is not at PRI and contains no branding of any kind. I wonder if you might consider helping me put it up, as I am not confirmed, or a giving me a quick suggestion as to which of the several methods I should use if you don't want to get involved. I also left a request for Bbb23 a couple of days ago, but have not heard back. As I'm sure you know, the Judge's page history is a hotbed of snarkism, for some reason, and I don't want to make some sort of clumsy move that stir the nest. You advice/help is much appreciated. Ddb2001 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Send me the photo by email: Special:EmailUser/Binksternet. I can upload it right away and start the process which is called OTRS, the process whereby the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team accepts emails from people regarding the free status of images and text. You and me and photographer will have to send some notes to the OTRS people. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate it, and I will do it promptly. I hope you will be frank when you can point me to research if I am wasting time. I will also send email from photog. and check back for next steps. Ddb2001 (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I am always frank. Nobody has ever accused me of the opposite. ;^)

I will continue to advise you as needed. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I sent the image and the photographer's note off to the OTRS team. (This was after trying and failing to upload it prior to permission.) Let's see how quickly they respond, how badly they are backlogged. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly love the image because it is low resolution, because it looks Photoshopped with Walker's facial lighting differing substantially from the background lobby lighting, because there appears to be a confusion about what is the subject (the foreground or the background?), and because it is too wide for a good portrait. Classic portraits are taller than they are wide. Of course, the existing photo could be cropped, but that was clearly not the intent of the photographer. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will see if, long term, I can engage the photographer and talk him into resolution and crop change. Again, appreciate the help. Ddb2001 (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice, and one more note of appreciation. You are a truly a wikisamaritan. Ddb2001 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind thoughts! Best... Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You may want to comment in your defense.

A courtesy notice from Albiet (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet

Hi Bink, You originally blocked Legolas2186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) however his page makes no mention of it and the bot seems to have archived the block messages etc. Is that an issue? → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I never blocked him. I have never been an administrator with the ability to block. In fact, I wanted him to stay active so that he could help fix the messes he created with fake references and made-up quotes.

You want User:Georgewilliamherbert, not me. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Binksternet. 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.