User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

File:Electrovoice-constant-directivity-horn-1975.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Electrovoice-constant-directivity-horn-1975.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Wikipraise is free to give, and I have seen you hard at work. So here is some Wikipraise for your hard work. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris Nickson book being used a source

Since you are quite good at finding the good sources and separate them from the bad ones, may I ask your opinion in this section of this Featured article? I'm afraid fansite inspired writing might be the case. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email in response to your query. If you don't receive it let me know and I'll resend. In short, I'm trying to stay out of that whole mess. --SouthernNights (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I totally get it. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

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: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Question

I am not affiliated with the Musicians Hall of Fame or any artists that have been inducted so I am not "promoting" anyone or anything. Why can pages include awards and inductions to the Rock and Roll or Country Hall of Fame without references but you remove the MHOF references? They are clearly inducted. I can easily find articles about it but its frustrating that other organizations are not referenced. Thanks!

--Nash424 (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What if you and me started "Nash and Bink's Hall of Fame", rented a building, and put memorabilia on the walls just like the Hard Rock restaurants? Would our hall of fame be worth including in somebody's biography if we induct them into it? That's what I'm getting at. The Musicians Hall of Fame certainly exists but is it notable? Do major newspapers and magazines mention it? Is it included in books? In music encyclopedias do you see the MHOF mentioned in the biographies of musicians? If the answer to all of the above is 'no', then I hold that MHOF is not important enough to include in Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, have you researched this? I know I'm a huge music junkie but I have read about the Musicians Hall of Fame in Rolling Stones' magazine and I listened to a 30 minute documentary that the BBC did. When the city of Nashville bought their building and made them close and move it was on Fox News and CNN. They are getting ready to re-open and it's being covered on the news stations here which is why I was checking out their site. When I won tix to a induction ceremony Keith Richards, Booker T. & The M.G's and The Crickets were among the performers and inductees. Other inductions list Peter Frampton, Garth Brooks, Mary Wilson from The Supremes,George Jones and Vince Gill as a few of the performers. I just found links from The Tennessean, New York and L.A Times I can add. I was just following the format of the other Hall of Fames. Thanks for your response, --Nash424 (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I did research this, and I did not see the Rolling Stones piece, or the BBC documentary. If both of those cases are significant coverage of the MHOF then the organization is "notable" per Wikipedia's WP:General notability guideline, and the references to MHOF can stay in biographies, etc. Can you link to the magazine article, or the BBC piece? Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the Rolling Stone's article I saw but here is one: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/kid-rock-keith-richards-help-induct-crickets-muscle-shoals-into-musicians-hall-of-fame-20081029

The BBC Documentary was produced by Bob Sugars. Here are pics from the shoot: http://www.sugarproductions.co.uk

Here is the advertisement for the documentary http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/hendrix_stage.shtml http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7697148.stm

Here is the TN Crossroads show from PBS http://wnpt.org/productions/crossroads/2008_jan.html

Fox News Coverage of the closing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO7S-4aIbQU

--Nash424 (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Was this adequate? --Nash424 (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. I have changed my position about the notability. I think Wikipedia should host an article titled Musicians Hall of Fame. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! --Nash424 (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Binksternet! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

yay Bink! I'm so glad you've joined the project. Let me know if you need anything at all! Can't wait to see the magic you create for WDL. p.s. We will need to get together in Oakland! SarahStierch (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

My contribution will not be immediate: I have to get a stretch of days off before getting really creative. My busy season at work is right now, so I'm forced to be Mr. Short Attention Span. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Your POV edits

Are you checking the World War 2, Truman and Eatherly pages for possible POV links and following my edits. I think you are being POV and your rights should be revoked? 75.70.142.23 (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I am worried about damage to Wikipedia as a result of your editing behavior. Please stop violating the WP:No original research guideline. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm entering my source. I think you are being sensitive about the atomic bombing, which I understand, but I'm entering source and trying to be productive. I think you are impulsively reverting the edits, which doesn't make sense. I think you want Truman and Hiroshima bombing to look insignificant, which is POV. 75.70.142.23 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If you keep edit warring, I think you should lose your status as an advanced Wikipedia editor because you are not a neutral and open minded editor/manager. This needs to be brought up. 75.70.142.23 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect regarding what I "want" from the articles. I take my cues from mainstream published works many of which disagree with each other about the atomic bombs. They don't disagree about the minor role played by Truman.

Regarding "edit warring", I must point out that you have reverted to uncited versions. Regarding status as a Wikipedia editor, I must point out that one of us uses an established username while the other chooses to remain hidden behind IP addresses. Did you ever have a Wikipedia account? Was it blocked? Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Well you see that Truman was an angel and I see that he was responsible, which is totally understandable. Atomic bombing was a horrific thing and many people feel sensitive about it, but I'm trying to lay everything out there. There seems to be a lot of tendency to revert Truman, Eatherly and Hiroshima articles from the point of view of Americans, but being totally anal about sources in the articles will not work. Most of the Eatherly article itself doesn't have source so the article should be entirely deleted? I understand your sensitivity and trying to make Harry Truman an angel, but I don't agree with that point of view and you using you Wikipedia privilege to silence opposing view is not worthy of your Wikipedia status and you should become a regular editor. That is my point. I will keep making the point until people know all the truth about these bombings. I don't edit war on many difference articles, but these articles are totally POV from Americans right now. Most of the sources are from American sources and they are biased. 75.70.142.23 (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at the article in question and believe that most of the articles problems stem from the fact that the references used can not be verified because the references used are not identified enough to locate or appear to be self published material. In any case, the are no page numbers cited. Until someone supplies good referencing, I honestly can't make much sense of the articles NPOV attributes or there is conflicting information. I corrected a few obvious errors in the article, but the issues germane to this discussion still remain. If I can help on referencing and citation formatting, I would be glad to help. First, I have to know what to format. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to use whatever citation format you are most comfortable with. Thanks for digging in; the article was very poorly written. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Very much agree that the article is poorly written! The reason Eatherly was notable is covered in less than 25% of the article and while his problems after the war might merit some discussion, I believe that too much space is devoted to that issue. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes! The man's notable accomplishments should be foremost. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The article should be totally delete in that case. The entire article is poorly cited. The accomplishment of the man is the atomic bombing, and that is what we are arguing over. You are missing the point. 64.134.24.94 (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Whether I am right or wrong, thanks. That makes it twice I know of today where you have stepped into the murky waters. As the saying goes, "you don't have to be mad to work here, but it helps". - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe my lower leg gets briefly dirty but you—you are swimming, even diving in the murkiness. Thank goodness someone is doing the dirty work!

All that is noble within me salutes all that is noble within you. Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Appreciated. So, which am I doing?! - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

David Jay Brown

Thank you for your work in reinstating, or recreating, this article. It's deletion made no sense to me at all.

If you have the time, could you look into another? Ted Andrews. This was a few years ago. Here's his deletion nomination, which had a "vote" of 8 deletes to 10 keeps, and yet was deleted. He was the author of 17 books through Llewellyn alone, and more through other presses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ted_Andrews Rosencomet (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome on Dave Brown. I remade the article because I took a look at the guy's notability by way of Google search and I thought he looked solid. When I get the time I will look at Andrews and see if there's enough to work with. (Just writing books is not enough.) If you don't see me doing something on it by July then poke me again. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well done you on this article. I had been reading a series of articles on Qworty and found myself wondering if the deleted article had been saved. Good job! Capitalismojo (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we will forever have problems like the Berenise/Qworty one until Wikipedia requires proof of identity to register an account. I see no further need for the encyclopedia to be edited by anyone at all ("anyone can edit"), the emphasis on anonymity. That strategy was useful at the beginning, when growing the knowledge base was the primary concern, but not any more, now that we have a more mature product. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Mea culpa

I have a guilty conscience and need to make apologies to you, a respected editor and wiki-colleague/-friend. Making a long story short, I made the edits to Caleb V. Haynes this morning before I noticed that the article was GA. Even had I not known of your work on it, I still would not have made the edits without first contacting the main editor--in this case, you--as a simple courtesy had I been more careful. It was a case of runaway editor-itis caused by, get this, simply trying to link Haynes' portrayal in God Is My Co-Pilot (film), which I DVRed over the weekend. (Its article left him out.) This may have happened to you. You read through the article, note a few things (such as the infobox inclusion of the National Guard in his service) that cause you to look deeper, and next thing you know, you find THE ERROR, the pet peeve, the red flag that never fails to call to action, in this case the "725 miles at sea." The horror! So one thing led to another... I'm apologizing because (A) you're a good guy, (B) I should have known better before I started editing because the prose was so well-written, and (C) in the end, I was lazy. I went to bed right after I made the changes (I work all night and made the edits after I got home this morning). I won't claim it bothered me enough to wake me up, but it did bother me, and when circumstances conspired to make me have to double back to work this afternoon, the first thing I did when I got up just now was try to revert everything, give you the correct information about the minor errors in fact, and let you make the changes. Alas, too late. To be honest, I feel most guilty about adding the new subsections. We all have our style--one of mine is multiple sections for "easier" reading--and one is as good as another. The Haynes article didn't need my tinkering to make it GA and it was rude of me to assume that. So accept my apology, old buddy, and feel free to revert it in any way you think best. btw, if you check my sources, you'll see that 620 miles is itself a ballpark figure. Goss says "about 600 miles" and Correll puts it at 610. The 620 figure was Cavellini's, the ship captain's, quoted in the Air Corps Newsletter of the day reporting the incident and the primary source for Head's anecdote about the airmen being "invited down to lunch." (I chose 620 for that reason to include in Interception of the Rex as the most contemporary and possibly the most accurate.) There is no doubt, however, that the 725 came from the Rex's position report brought to LeMay as his B-17 was taxiing for takeoff four hours before the intercept. Lesson learned on my end.--Reedmalloy (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, GA-level writing is not FA-level, and certainly not sacrosanct by any stretch of the imagination. You are perfectly welcome to jump in and make the article perform more satisfactorily for the reader. And I do not have WP:OWNership issues about the biography, which you did not accuse me of but which seemed to me to be an element of your restlessness and worry.

So, thanks for your involvement! I appreciate the changes. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Crusades/archive1

G'day, I reckon this PR might be stale. Not sure if it was templated right when it was put up. Could you have a look? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The last comment was from Casliber on 11 May 2013‎. I expect PeerReviewBot will archive this PR after three weeks of inactivity, which will be in couple of days. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Irish Civil War

Careful with this instantly recognisable sockpuppet, drawing you (as he did me) into 3RR exchanges - others will catch up and help with reverts. Brocach (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am not worried about 3RR when reverting a banned sockpuppet. Such reversions do not count toward 3RR. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Keep up the good work. RashersTierney (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, was only trying to offer help. Well done. Brocach (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I welcome any and all help in keeping banned User:HarveyCarter at bay. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Liberation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli

Will you explain this revert. You re-added a bunch of original research which was deleted. I hope you check your edit. --Neelkamala (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will look at the text in question, along with examining the sources with regard to the word "Liberation" in the article title. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Pacific War

So why isn't Canada and Australia put under the United Kingdom?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilmn2002 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, I have just noticed your warning to our friend above about the three revert rule. To make you aware, he is also close to breeching it on the Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II article. I have asked him, via edit summary, to take his position to the talkpage rather than editwar. Regards.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for David Jay Brown

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your work reverting vandalism and bringing such issues to WP:RFPP. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hey Binksternet, I'm following up on an email I sent you last week, asking for your insights on editor engagement. If you didn't get that email, could you please contact me at fflorinwikimedia.org, so I can tell you more? Thanks! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I responded by email. I look forward to joining the discussion. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Harvey Carter

He was editing before under a 92.7 IP cluster and you, or whoever, banned him: Talk:Mau_Mau_Uprising#92.7.xxx_is_banned_HarveyCarter.

I am suspicious, because two IPs (88.104.220.8 - 88.104.212.103) are now back on the Mau Mau article, both from a cluster, and have been making the same predictable changes to the Mau Mau article—predictable in as much as the 88.104.s want to play down the negative role we Brits played in Kenya. One change was made because the "[o]riginal wording implied colonialism was negative"! Never mind that the article was using the exact wording of one of the sources used ("hardest hit") for that sentence! Here's the diff of me undoing it, but I subsequently changed my mind and toned it down by using the wording of the other source used (Füredi).

Anyway, the new IP cluster editing in the same way that the HarveyCarter made me suspicious, and so I thought I'd call your attention to it seeing as you were involved before. LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

89.168.124.200 – This can only be a sock IP! See the Mau Mau article edit history! LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A sockpuppet is identified by behavior, so you are probably right about IP 88 and 89. However, they are operating in Moray and Aberdeen rather than southeast England, so that puzzle would have to be accounted for. Perhaps Harvey is traveling? Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Gustave Whitehead Wiki and Talk Page". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 02:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Army National Guard page

I got your note. I agree. It's a work in progress. When I get done, the content will be arranged more logically than it was when I started, it'll be more complete, and I'll include wiki links and footnotes. Billmckern (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see! In that case, you might consider working offline, copying the article into your userspace to minimize disruption in mainspace. You could create a user sandbox space such as User:Billmckern/sandbox or User:Billmckern/Army National Guard or User:Billmckern/ANG. I will leave you to it. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I usually work offline and then paste my edits in when I'm done. I just got into it yesterday while I was typing during a break at work and didn't realize until too late that the it was time to go. As a result I saved my edits rather than lose them. Billmckern (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You're not the first

Hi Binksternet, I'm not sure if you're aware that you are not the first editor that CSDarrow has accused of being a bully tonight, and who he's threatened to report. See this discussion on Bbb23's talk page. As I told him, I don't think things are going to work out well for him. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I checked that out a few minutes ago. He's on a roll, but into foul territory. Binksternet (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Editors who ignore the fact that everyone is telling them they're wrong, yet choose to fight them all and make bogus claims and threats, is very problematic. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit alert

Hello B. I have had a go at reducing the plot section of A Clockwork Orange. Although I have been around a while I have never learned how you do a count on the words in the plot section - other than the time consuming physical count and I am to lazy to do that tonight. If I haven't reached 700 I hope that, as I said in my edit summary, allowances can be made for actor names - piped links and reference/footnote about BillyBoy' name. You are certainly free to restore the tag if I haven't done enough. I was leaving this message in hopes of avoiding any misunderstanding and my apologies if I have failed in the attempt. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 00:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reduction by about 200 words. The section is now about 770 words. Whenever I have to count characters or words I search online for "character count tool" or "word count tool". The search always returns a few free choices where you just paste in the text. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome and thanks for the suggestion about the tools. My knowledge about what can be done with computers is Flintstonian (think woodpeckers chipping at stone to create a pic) so I appreciate your cluing me in. MarnetteD | Talk 00:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think its a pterodactyl! :)

Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

HeeHee. You might be right. It was an episode where they were using a stone age Polaroid camera that has stuck in my memory all these years. Too fun. Enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD | Talk 02:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at Talk:Saladin.
Message added 16:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Faizan 16:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ultrasound article

Hello Binksternet. I am new to the Wikipedia talk page format and so I apologize if I am not doing this in the appropriate way but I would like to see if an addition can be made to the Wikipedia ultrasound article and I don't know the proper way to do this. My father, Denis Abelson, MD was the first to describe heart sounds using ultrasound in his 1968 article in JAMA. 1968;204(6):438-443. doi:10.1001/jama.1968.03140190020006 titled " Ultrasonic Doppler Auscultation of the Heart." He used a fetal ultrasound monitor in this research, which he did in his own lab. This undertaking paved the way for further research leading to techniques that are now used everyday in Medicine across the globe. He has never received any kind of recognition for his groundbreaking description of heart sounds using Doppler Ultrasound and still practices medicine in Philadelphia at the age of 88. Thank you very much.Sabelsonmd (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet. I understand that you reverted my posts to Ultrasound article in order prevent advertizing. However, the information I provided is objective and correct to the best of my knowledge. There was a company reference in the section so I added another one. I feel it would be a shame to just delete all the information, I believe it adds value to the article. Would you consider just removing the references to the company and leaving the information in? I will leave it up to you, of course. Peshkovs (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2013 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peshkovs (talk • contribs)

I see you uploaded an image to WikiCommons that you said you made yourself, yet it was previously published at Sonomechanics. That means you are connected to Sonomechanics, and you should be careful to comply with Wikipedia's rules about people having a conflict of interest: WP:COI.

Rather than using a company page as a reference, is it possible to use an industry magazine or technical journal? How about a white paper on the technology? I think it is important to have WP:SECONDARY sources so that we are assured that the technology has been recognized by mainstream observers. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I can definitely remove all links to the company website. There are several peer reviewed articles and a book that can be referred to instead. May I go ahead and put the text and the image back and replace the references? Should the name of the company also be removed from the picture description together with the reference? Peshkovs (talk) 5:45, 12 June 2013 (EST)

The image is okay to use in the article but it does not need a reference, nor does it need the name of Sonomechanics in the caption. I think it would be best to refrain from any mention of Sonomechanics in the article text and instead use those peer-reviewed articles and the book. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I will do this in a few hours. (talk) 5:55, 12 June 2013 (EST)

Hi Binksternet, The changes are now made with all references pointing to peer reviewed papers and published books. Thanks for your guidance in making the text more objective! I have a related question. There is a paragraph in the same portion of the article that also appears to be clearly promotional: "Equipment manufacturers have developed a number of larger ultrasonic processors of up to 16 kW power.[35]. Therefore volumes from 1mL up to several hundred gallons per minute can be sonicated today in order to achieve all kinds of results from the link that is shown below" The reference is to a single company website. Should this paragraph be removed? Alternatively, I could add links to other manufacturer webpages and revise this text a little. What would be better? talk) 11:38, 13 June 2013 (EST)

Regarding the 16 kW claim: if you think this is good information for the article to have, then yes, please find a WP:SECONDARY reference for it. Otherwise, it can be taken out without much loss to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed it, seems much cleaner this way. [User talk:Peshkovs#top|talk]]) 11:52, 13 June 2013 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peshkovs (talk • contribs)

TIGHAR article

Binksternet,

I don’t understand your edits to TIGHAR, nor why you have reverted my last edit. I understand that Wikipedia prefers primary sources to secondary sources, but the first reference only confirmed TIGHAR’s position on the bone fragments and the second reference referred to a report generated by the molecular anthropology laboratories of the University of Oklahoma. I don’t see that how TIGHAR’s own statement regarding their position is an unreliable source when I am stating their position, nor do I think that a forensics report written by a university is an unreliable source when I am stating their own conclusions about the bone fragments. I also don’t understand why it is preferable to say “multiple expeditions” instead of “ten expeditions”. You’ve obviously been around Wikipedia for a while, so how telling me how I’m editing wrong? 68.74.163.157 (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers WP:SECONDARY sources, ones which will give a more complete view of the likelihood of TIGHAR's various theories. It would be better to use newspaper stories regarding the bone fragments.

Regarding "multiple" rather than "ten" expeditions, I thought it would be better to have the Wikipedia article portray TIGHAR with a sense of timelessness. The ten expeditions could be described individually in subsections. Binksternet (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia PREFERS secondary sources lest primary sources be used inappropriately. I understand that you might be concerned about the TIGHAR article becoming an advertisement for TIGHAR, or that it might become a soapbox for proponents of TIGHAR’s theory (concerns which I share) but I can see nothing objectionable in the material that you removed. The TIGHAR article will undoubtedly remain an uninformative stub if it is built on secondary sources alone. Please restore my edit or raise specific objections to the sources that I used in regards to the statements that they supported. We can continue this discussion on TIGHAR’s talk page. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet,

Since you refused to have a discussion about it I have undone your reversion to TIGHAR and proceeded to flesh out the article. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

OR dispute

Hi. If it's not too much trouble, could you comment at this talk page regarding an editor's OR addition to an article? Dan56 (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Gun harmonisation

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This is an excellent article. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick! :-)

Binksternet (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

linking to dabs is bad

I suggest you read this a few times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links_to_disambiguation_pages

Then can stop doing it wrong.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Cj keri trimpe

Hello Binksternet. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Cj keri trimpe, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: No outward spamming. User's own page. Not blatant enough as advert. Thank you. Alexf^(talk) 17:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Your call. If you look at all the deleted contributions by Cj keri trimpe you'll see that she is only here to promote herself, especially with falsehoods inflating her modeling experience. She is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That may be so but it still does not have a relation to the reason for the speedy request. If she spams, then we can take action on the account on that basis. Please report to AIV in that case. Thanks for your vigilance. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Editing San Mateo

Hi Blinkerstreet,

I apologize for what I was doing before. I was trying to correct a mistake I had made while adding to the San Mateo California section. Another user by the name of Nthep alerted me to the problem where there was duplicate information on the page and I was deleting the extra information. I am still learning how to do this well and probably should try the sandbox before I try anything new again.

Sincerely, PacifiCali650 (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Er...

...I don't think that last edit to SIOA was quite what you meant to do. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Tell me what is wrong with this edit, please, and I will pay attention. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summary was "directly stating the group's Islamophobia," but instead you restored the IP's promotional edit (as though SIOA is making some heroic stand against Muslim conquerors' "influence") with the exception of "Islamic" for "Islamist." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Let me tweak it a bit. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, I missed your removal of the link pipe, my apologies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That part was me addressing the expressed concern about having a surprise "Easter egg" link. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor Engagement Roundtable

What a kick it was to share viewpoints with fellow Wikipedians today, sitting in a big circle at WMF HQ. Thanks to all the considered and thoughtful comments from Ocaasi, Kevin Gorman, KrystleChung, LaMona, ChesPal, Cullen328, Maximilianklein, Dvortygirl, SPat, Saehrimnir, Quiddity, RaymondYee, with guidance from WMF participants Fabrice Florin, Howief, Jorm and Accedie. Depending on my work schedule, I will tentatively but enthusiastically join another such roundtable discussion. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It was a delight to meet you, Binksternet, and so many other outstanding Wikipedians today. It is always great to connect a friendly face with a username. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for bringing Dexter! What an ice-breaker he is. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I had a good time at the roundtable and enjoyed meeting everyone too! RaymondYee (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Verily! There seemed to be a plethora of insights, for the participants and hosts alike. An excellent mix of people (and canine). Hope to see you all again some time, and around the wiki for sure. (However, I still think the office needs a pet cat, in addition to any visiting or inhouse dogs... ;) –Quiddity (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Great meeting you! Please do come to more of these :) Accedie^{talk to me} 03:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Like. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Binksternet: Thanks so much for your kind words, the feeling is mutual! I am so glad you were able to join us, and it was a true pleasure to meet you. Sorry I couldn't respond sooner, as I wanted to finish preparing this project page, as well as upload these photos and first videos. If you have a moment, it would be wonderful if you could share your final notes on our talk page -- and you are welcome to fill in any missing info on our Roundtables project page. We learned a lot from each other -- and are already using some of your suggestions in our product plans. Thanks again for your wonderful contributions -- and I hope we'll get a chance to continue our collaboration in the future! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I apppreciate all that you wrote about the Roundtable. Sorry to be so slow in responding. It was a fascinating experience. Since then I started dabbling with the Visual Editor, adding things to my user page and beginning another article from scratch. So, slowly, the tortoise is moving along. Thank you for your kind words about Dexter. He is definitely a people dog! ChesPal (talk)

User:HarveyCarter

I think this banned editor is at it again - see 92.7.23.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). What do you think? RashersTierney (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You nailed it. Totally him. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

WallyBecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? RashersTierney (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

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: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Followup from Saturday

Hi Binksternet,

On Saturday, I mentioned to you that I was going to help a woman editor write an article. She is the one I met on Facebook who had been bullied by a jerk on Wikipedia a while back, and she has a lot of concerns about that type of behavior. Understandably. Anyway, take a look at what we came up with, Murder of Donna Jones. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I fixed the orphan problem by throwing a few links around. Binksternet (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Seeking your opinion

On Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_9#Category:People_associated_with_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Aw, I looked at that earlier and shrugged it off as too involved. Categories are not my thing so much as article content. At any rate, I think the category should be kept, but there should be a firm division between those who participated in the battlefield vs the laboratory vs halls of government, those who reported or documented the aftermath, writers and historians who studied the issue, and of course the victims themselves. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sockage reportage

Gigabytelord and Alitja are blatant socks.

Talk:World_War_II#Edit_request_on_25_June_2013
Talk:World_War_II#Edit_request_on_25_June_2013_2

Special:Contributions/Gigabytelord
Special:Contributions/Alitja

LudicrousTripe (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. Gigabytelord has a better command of English. Binksternet (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You're Welcome

It's good to get a nice notification. Keep up the good work. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Like Binksternet (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hi Binksternet, just thought you should know that in Canada there has been legal precedent and peer-reviewed articles that support the notion of tanning industry using propaganda in its marketing. I strongly suggest you read the literature before accusing someone of biased reporting. Given your great track record on wikipedia, I surely expected more from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.184.208 (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not read the guideline WP:COATRACK. The information you wish to insert is about the tanning industry, not about how propaganda was used. Binksternet (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Visual Editor

Hey Binksternet

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I will check it out when it goes live. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Care Net

Hello Binksternet. There is a "discussion" taking place at the Talk page for Care Net that you might find of interest. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Heads up: in case you saw my decline of your protection request at WP:RFPP, I've thought better of it and semi'd for one week. Please see my updated note for why. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC).

Federales is Belchfire

Well, that's unsurprising. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I was putting together a case on Federales last night, waiting for more evidence, and then I woke up this morning to see him blocked. Good job, all. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For civility in dealing with and the revertion of vandalism by the IP 98.196.235.104 on the ProtectMarriage.com article. 155blue (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Just another lively day at Wikipedia. ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership Newsletter

Expand Wikipedia's free knowledge with WDL resources!

Hi Binksternet! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Wikipedia! I wanted to share a few updates with you:

• We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
• Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
• WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
• Our first batch of WDL barnstars have been awarded! Congratulations to our first recipients: ProtoplasmaKid, ChrisGualtieri, TenthEagle, Rhyswynne, Luwii, Sosthenes12, Djembayz, Parkwells, Carl Francis, Yunshui, MrX, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and the prolific Yster76!! Thank you for your contributions and keep up the great work. Be sure to share your article expansions and successes here.

Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge! EdwardsBot (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and question

Hello B. Thanks for taking the "bull by the horns" and acting on our consensus regarding the fields in infoboxes. I am wondering if we should also note this in somewhere on the MoS for the film or the filmmaker and actor project? Eventually that conversation will get archived and the link you are providing in your edit summary won't work. At the very least we will want to keep an eye on the archive number that it winds up in. Cheers and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 01:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am only a fair weather project member; though I can see how my actions made me a de facto member, at least yesterday and today. I have never put my name on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Participants list.

I agree that the consensus should be established in the project's MoS but I will leave that to project stalwarts.

Regarding the orphaning of talk page discussions after they move to archives, I think the wiki system should automatically create redirects for those. At any rate, I will try to keep an eye out for the archival of the thread, and I will seek to create the needed redirect at that time. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sounds good I also had a thought that we might use a FAQ section like we have here Talk:List of Doctor Who serials. So I'll propose that to them at some point. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 02:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Interaction analyzer

Thanks for indirectly informing me about the new tool; I had no idea it existed! I only remembered Intersect Contribs, which is nowhere near as cool. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You bet! I keep a link to the tool on my user page, down near the bottom right. It can take more than two users. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks also for the kudos on my CPC edits. Interested in working on anything on the worklist and/or suggesting other things that need to be done? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The hot weather here in Oakland must be affecting my drive—I'm gettin' lazy! The CPC article is not my area of expertise and I am loathe to don the hip waders and rubber gloves required for working on that topic. I applaud your efforts, but from the sidelines. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Trying to respond

I am trying to respond to "Favoring the Joelle Million Book?" on the Lucy Stone talk page but believe I have only succeeded posting it on my own talk page. I need your help. This is my first time participating in a Wikipedia talk session and I haven't figured out how to get where I need to be. I clicked on the site you emailed to me but that didn't work. Would you mind walking me through it?Jmillionjpostma (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see your reply posted on your own talk page. If you don't mind, I will move this reply to the Lucy Stone talk page which is at Talk:Lucy Stone. Your thoughtful reply merits attention from the other Wikipedia editors interested in Stone, not just you and me. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Miriam Battista

Wow, Binksternet, you're a wonder!! I can't thank you enough for sharing the great info you have on Miriam Battista, especially the Gladys Hall piece in Motion Picture. And thank you also for clarifying the Wikipedia policy on original research. That's counter-intuitive for me, since my writing in college demanded original research, which led me to several jobs that also made use of those skills. But I can now see that an encyclopedia needs to be based on secondary and tertiary sources. Sorry to have this realization so late in the game!

So I'll go back to my article with those criteria in mind and will revisit the published sources I consulted initially. If the rewritten article gets accepted, I'll owe you a huge bouquet of thanks.--Ailemadrah (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed that you actually cleaned up the article yourself and added a delightful summary of the Gladys Hall piece - double "Wow!" and infinite thanks!! I do have some info from second-party sources that I didn't use, so I'll see if I can fit that in without bloating the article. --Ailemadrah (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about bloating the article. The WP:Secondary sources are needed, I think, to get your article created.

I removed the primary research documents as references but the facts that they supported are still in the article. This last bit needs your hand. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ted Andrews, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raptor (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) 13:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

2012 Delhi gang rape case

Hi there Binkster. I am wondering if you would have any interest in helping with this article. I have asked Coretheapple for help as well. To save time I will just c/p my note to him.

Hi there Core, would you be interested in doing a copy edit for the 2012 Delhi gang rape case article? To my great surprise it has been nominated for a GA review and I have a high edit count for the article. My larger edits were mostly in the medical sections and reactions but I did a lot of copy edits as well because most of the active editors were Indians and it was, well, interesting... I welcome a review because I strongly believe that this tragic incident is as important to the woman's movement as the murder of Emmit Till was to the African Americans fight for justice. The problem is, the article seems to (perhaps) read like a tabloid account ("He ripped her intestines out with his bare hands..."). However, I learned that the English speaking news articles did report the incident in that manner, a manner in which it would have not been reported in the American press, and that's what there was to go with. Plus, it should be remembered that it is mostly their article. I'd appreciate any comments on that aspect of the article as well. Perhaps you would even like to help with the GA? I will also ask Binksternet to help with the review as I know that he has a lot of interest in woman's issues. Gandydancer (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A terrible incident! I will look at the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That was fast! Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

Hi.I notice your recent edit at Aam Aadmi Party has removed the Jan Lokpal Bill Protest mention.As source clearly state Janlokpal movement,not team anna .Pls revert it. Thanks . TY of ^Walk 20:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The source says Team Anna specifically. The point is that Arvind Kejriwal and Anna Hazare both worked within Team Anna.

The Jan Lokpal Bill is still in the paragraph, so that information is not gone. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Woman's National Loyal League article

Hi, I recently expanded the Woman's National Loyal League article (again) and also put a notice on its discussion page with my proposal to rename it to "Woman's Loyal National League". I see that you created a big chunk of the original article and also renamed the article yourself in 2009, so I wanted to call your attention to this situation in case you had comments. Also, thanks for keeping a close eye on the Susan B. Anthony article. That's another one I hope to upgrade before too long.--Bilpen (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the SBA bio needs a lot of help. I've been putting it off forever. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A big bouquet for you!

	Thanks for your generous help
	Thank you, Binksternet, for your generous help and wonderful additions to Miriam Battista, my first article. I aspire to someday be as helpful to other new editors as you have been to me. Ailemadrah (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Fuchida

Took Bennett less than 8 hours to replace your reasonable edit with a strongly anti-Parshall paragraph. Someone should do something about it. Tricericon (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)