Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:46, 20 December 2010

Binksternet	My articles	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

Archives

Archive1 - August 2007 – June 2008, Archive2 - July–November 2008, Archive3 - November 2008 – May 2009, Archive4 - May–July 2009, Archive5 - July–August 2009, Archive6 - September–October 2009, Archive7 - October–December 2009, Archive8 - December 2009 – February 2010, Archive9 - March–April 2010, Archive10 - May–July 2010, Archive11 – July–October 2010

Crist

Please don't stuff it in like that, there is objections to you addition from multiple editors, and no one even wanted to comment to you RFC at all, I suggest that is reflective of the value of the content, as before, seek consensus on the talkpage, there are multiple objections. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you not consider the tame version ? perhaps there can be consensus for that. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In April 2009, Crist was one of the subjects of Kirby Dick's documentary film Outrage, a Tribeca Film Festival feature about politicians who the film claims are "closeted" homosexuals and who vote against gay rights. Crist denied the allegations.

Why would the "tame version" have a reference to a 2006 news article when it only mentions 2009? I do not like this version as it is not accurate. The version I put into the article is clearer about what the film says, and it is clearer about the fact that Crist was already subject to that kind of accusation three years earlier. In my opinion, the small paragraph I restored is already the tame version—the larger version I prefer has much more explication, delivering arguments, proof and denials chronologically. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

2006 - 2009 - its hair splitting, I am open to accepting a simple comment about it, but that is not enough for you, presently there is nothing, the tame version is plenty, and reports it in a uninvolved manner. I urge you to accept it and if more is revealed we can perhaps add it. Please remember that there were also objections to the tame version but as a compromise I can support it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the chipping away process has already compromised the paragraph I inserted today, compromise in the negative sense. What I inserted:

In April 2009, Kirby Dick's documentary film Outrage stated that Crist was a "closeted" homosexual who voted against gay rights. In the film, Crist denied allegations of homosexuality, just as he denied them in 2006 when asked by Florida-based reporter Bob Norman.

...already presented the issue in an uninvolved manner. Your version has Crist denying allegations that are not made. The reader wonders what it is that Crist denies. An encyclopedia should not be opaque like this; should not answer questions that are not asked. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP policy requires us to take care with such claims. Christ denies all the allegations, all of them, simple. I have to say, your version is not written neutrally and leans towards asserting the claims as fact. Anyway, if you are not willing to consider my good faith offer to include some mention of the issue then all I can say is seek consensus on the talkpage for your desired edit. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You cannot even write the allegations here on a talk page? Crist denies allegations of homosexuality, not other allegations, "all of them", whatever those are. It is homosexuality he denies. Your version of the paragraph does not say so. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help

Without it I doubt I would have been unblocked. It may take me a while to get back up to speed. Any particular course of action you recommend to fix the 1953 coup article? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A series of narrowly defined RfCs, one at a time. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice efforts

Nice efforts at Outrage (2009 film)! ;) I added an Awards sect there, and also at Kirby Dick. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate stub articles that deserve to be bigger. :)

Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we could get it to GA? ;) -- Cirt (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a lot on my plate but I will keep an eye on it. The local video rental only has one copy of the DVD and it is frequently out (not to pun)... Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1945 Japan–Washington flight

On 26 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1945 Japan–Washington flight, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Bill Flores

Hey, just wanted to give you a heads up that I updated our conversation at Talk:Bill Flores Arbor832466 (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Just wanted to let you know that I've started a review of your article at Talk:Caleb V. Haynes/GA1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR Ronald Skirth

I have nominated Ronald Skirth for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwab3 (talk • contribs)

Certainly! I will take a look at the FAR listing. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It was accidentally listed as an FAR so I have moved it to Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Ronald Skirth/archive1. Regards. Woody (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite Block of BS24

BS24 is on indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. This editor has had many socks and is likely to return under a new account. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I will keep an eye out. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Medal

Thanks! That's very sweet of you :-D Yngvadottir (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome! Thanks for helping the wiki be as good as it is. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Winter's account on Coanda-1910

Can I get the Winter's full account by e-mail? The format does not matter.--Lsorin (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

1. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardMDkzYTljODktMDc5NS00NjdmLTgwNGMtMzIyMzZmY2Q0M2Ni&hl=en&authkey=CIqt7KgF
2. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardNjI3NmE2MTMtM2MwNC00YjU3LTgzN2YtZTVkZjQ2YTlmZjgz&hl=en&authkey=CPT3qc0L
3. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardYmVkZDg3ZmItNTU1Yy00ODhmLWIxYzctMTBhZTJmZDgyZGI4&hl=en&authkey=CI_Wu4MM
4. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardYTViMGFiZDktZThjZi00YTM1LWI3Y2EtZGNjN2M2MWVlZDk4&hl=en&authkey=CMPo6JwJ
5. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardNGU3OGRkNjktNzEyZi00ZDY5LWI4MmEtOGMxMjQxYmQxOWU5&hl=en&authkey=CPnFjrUN
6. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardZjJjNWEyNDctZWQwOC00YjhkLWEwNDMtYWJjZDZmNDI1NmRi&hl=en&authkey=CPjanPQJ
7. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardZDdhZThhMWEtNGI0Ni00YzRiLWI0NjktNjJiYTJjNzcxMDMx&hl=en&authkey=CNWMoMEH
8. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardZjc2ZjNkZjUtNGU2NS00ZDhhLThkMWItYTc1MzI0MWVmMzMx&hl=en&authkey=CKmYmKkI
9. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardMzhjMDZiMTItMTBlZS00ZWI1LTk0OGYtYzM2YTRhZmYyOGNi&hl=en&authkey=CPiZh2s
10. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardYWMyOWMwZjAtMDU0ZS00N2Y2LTg1MjMtOTMzNmE5YTQ0OTM1&hl=en&authkey=COPlruYL

Perhaps these will work for you... I have never tried this method to see. Binksternet (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Whistling

Thanks for replying; i've chopped around a bit ~ if you like take a gander & see if you reckon it's all right. Cheers, Lindsay 10:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

compromise

Hi, adding the compromise like that isn't really correct, we are looking for agreement. The issue is back at the BLPN. If you accept the compromise addition that I created then you should have said that on the talkpage and seen if there was support to add it, as you know there are other users that object to the mention of the issue at all. For your comment you added the compromise but don't support it, which is strange, anyways, we are looking for a discussed agreement, so perhaps we can work it out this time, but while we do, the issue is better out of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I reverted your addition to the Crist page. I generally agree with it, but I don't want this to turn into another edit war. Protonk (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Understood. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Martin's Kitten

As it was a redlink in the Coanda-1910 article I thought I'd investigate. this (referring to Port Victoria P.V.8) together with this make me think it might be this: Martin KF-1. Do you have anything to confirm or deny the link?GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You have found the Kitten article, I am sure. Since the model numbers K-III or K-3 changed to K-IV or K-4, then to KF-1, I think the article should be moved to Martin Kitten, a name which I believe captures the series. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the naming conventions are pretty much for service designations and a redirect and addition to the lede would probably handle it. The design/influence link to the PV8 could also be made in the article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participate!

Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Misplaced Pages's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.

I'm posting across User Talk pages to engage you, the community, in working to build Misplaced Pages not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Please visit the Contribution Team page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. ⇒DanRosenthal 18:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Jelly Roll

Thanks for cleaning up and citing Schuller's actual statements about Jelly Roll. My copy is in storage during a remodel, so I couldn't do it. Josephbyrd (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You bet! You're welcome. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Dreamboat Link

Sorry for the error. You were perfectly correct in removing that ex link. But in my defence, I did a search and there is a redirect to that page. Again, sorry for the inconvenience I caused. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all, no inconvenience. Again, I encourage you to write the article about Colonel Irvine's record-breaking flight. Binksternet (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My edit to The Mosquito

I personally have had physical pain inflicted on me by these devices and bad cathode ray tube televisions and monitors. Unlike poor quality CRTs which make such noise as a side effect, The Mosquito was designed to make this noise. I was smart enough not to listen to lots of loud music and noises when I was young, so I can still hear many high-frequency noises that many people in my age range cannot hear. That is why I consider The Mosquito a weapon. See http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/articles.aspx?page=independentarticle&ID=210372 and http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jun/20/teenager-repellent-mosquito-banned-europe for more evidence that shows that these things cause pain and therefore are weapons. Jesse Viviano (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NOR which says "no original research". Your experiences do not define The Mosquito and its characteristics—what defines it are verifiable sources that call it a weapon. The ones I can find call it an irritant. Only non-experts with an axe to grind have called it a weapon, such as Shami Chakrabarti of the human rights group Liberty. The threshold for pain in hearing is generally set at somewhere between 120 dB and 140 dB, but some individuals have hyper-sensitive hearing, and can experience pain just from listening to a lorry drive by. These people are not what the device is aimed at. It's intention is to annoy and irritate, not to cause pain. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have found research by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe showing that this is not just me. See http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc10/EDOC12186.htm . Jesse Viviano (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Your source says The Mosquito is well below the threshold of pain, well below 120 dB. The fact that some groups call the device a weapon is already in the article, but their opinion is countered by others who say it is an annoying irritant, not a weapon. Misplaced Pages articles cannot declare as fact any assertion upon which differing opinions have been stated. If some experts say that it is not a weapon, we cannot say that it is a weapon as a fact. Instead, we can say which groups or which critics call it a weapon. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nilsson Sings Newman

On 21 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nilsson Sings Newman, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a record store clerk once told Randy Newman that the 1970 album Nilsson Sings Newman nearly finished off Harry Nilsson's career? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

DYK medal

Thanks for the 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal, and for the words of encouragement. —Bruce1ee 06:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome! Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

CD history

You consider my report on the birth place of the CD too detailed. I do not agree. Who gives you the authority to decide? It would be more polite to send me your opinion instead of just deleting my addition. If I undo your deletion I would behave in the same way.

An unpleasant encounter with the mores of Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan de Vries Underhill (talk • contribs) 14:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The authority I based my decision on is my experience in writing encyclopedia articles. I immediately saw that you were writing about the birth of the Laserdisc, not the CD. Your words were an exultant avowal of the early Philips team's success in making visual media cheap for teaching. Is visual media history crucial to the Compact Disc? Is the CD about making film more viewable by putting it into a digital form? No... the CD is about sound only. Wrong article. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey user Jan de Vries Underhill, anyone would have reverted your edit to that article 'cause you cant sign your name on Misplaced Pages articles. That's not allowed and it potentially violates WP:COI rules. You also need to provide references per WP:RS. Jrod2 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Namman Muay

Thanks for removing the links on Namman Muay. I was blocked for edit warring for doing the same thing, so I didn't want to touch them. Falcon8765 18:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw that. I also put three of the promotional images up for deletion on Commons. I don't like to see sales pitches on WP. :( Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Me neither, hence my edits. Anyways, thanks for catching it! I thought the images were questionable as well, but I'm not terrible familiar with Commons stuff. Falcon8765 19:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Coanda 1910 talkpage

You may not care for the anonymous editors contributions to the talk page, but I feel they should not be deleted. a) there are certain occasions when material ought to be deleted and having a contrary opinion (malformed, ignorant, badly expressed or whathaveyou as it is) is not one of them. b) in the forceful debate going on it is best to be extra careful with the ettiquette lest it give the wrong impression to others. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Gunston book question

Do you know if Gunston, in the books mentioned in the Coanda-1910 article which do not include Coanda, specifically credits others with the first jet engine developments? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I will have to schedule another trip to UC Berkeley's Engineering library to find out. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be good if you could find out, hopefully it's not too onerous. I was thinking there might be a counter argument to Coanda's omission in that the two later works might have concentrated on engines that were used successfully, rather than being a treatment of the development of the jet and related engines. Trying to think how best to word this - I would expect Coanda's powerplant to appear in books "alongside" the Napier Oryx, rather than a trainspotter's guide for use at an airport if you see what I mean. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not onerous, it's just scheduling around my work assignments. Can't go today—maybe tomorrow. I'll look for Lorin in those books, and I'll see what they say about Napier's Oryx, for grins. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It didn't work out the other day... I'll schedule another trip soon. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No rush, hopefully you're not getting the weather we are :{ GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The San Francisco Bay Area is getting some rain and overcast the past few days, and some brisk temperatures, so it is normal December fare. No freezing. Hang in there in Norfolk! Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

Communicat has a case before the ArbCom and, in discussion prior to the case being accepted by ArbCom, I mentioned that you had experienced negative interactions with Communicat. Let me start by naming others with whom Communicat has had similar negative interactions, as the Committee may wish to either involve them or review the interactions: Arnoutf, Parsecboy, Binksternet, Paul Siebert, Moxy, and White Shadows. Those interactions have not been universally negative, though mostly so.

This prompted Communicat to write the onus is on Habap to inform those editors that he has involved them, so that they may speak for themselves, if at all. at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II. In the arbitration case, Communicat alleges anti-Soviet bias by the members of the WikiProject Military History, specifically naming Edward321, Hohum, Nick-D, Georgewilliamherbert and me. If you would like to present evidence, you would do so on the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence page. If you disagree with my characterization of your interactions as being "mostly negative", it would be appreciated if you would state that on the evidence page to clarify the matter.

I apologize for involving you in this process as I am sure you have more enjoyable things to do. --Habap (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I already knew of the case. Your characterization of my interactions is accurate. I may chime in, I may not. I feel certain Communicat is Winer, and that the whole case should be approached with that in mind. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had the tragic discovery that Communicat has been copying directly from Between the Lies in some of his talk page remarks and some of his article contributions. Ugh! --Habap (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Saves time spent thinking or typing... ^_^

Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The California Star

Hi Binksternet, Thank you for the California Star, it was (in August) and continually is (by moving down...) very appreciated, and so kind and thoughtful of you.---Best---Look2See1 t a l k → 04:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome! You certainly deserved (and deserve) the star. Great work! Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Challenge

I gladly accept ! I haven't made use of a sandbox previously but I'll try to figure it out then will alert you. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just click on the red link and copy some text in and save it. Done! One caution is that your sandbox version should not include any categories or interwiki links, nothing below the external links section. Those bits would otherwise lead readers to your work-in-progress before it was placed in mainspace. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Yawata

Hi, I hope that you don't mind me reverting your edit here. While it's obviously the case that B-25s were land-based bombers, the key feature of the Doolittle Raid was that they flew off an aircraft carrier as Japan was outside the range of any of the US' land-based aircraft at the time and as a result it was basically a one-off 'hit and run' operation. Conversely, the key feature of the attack on Yawata was that it was the first time that bombers flying from a permanent base attacked Japan, signaling the start of a long-running campaign. I hope that this isn't over-complicating things, and I'd be very happy to discuss it. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We're both reading from the same program: I wrote strategic bombers in place of "land-based" aircraft because this attack was surely the first strategic bombing of Japan, a significant step in the war. The term "land-based" was much less important to the lead section, and debatable anyway because B-25s are land-based aircraft generally, so their carrier launch with Doolittle was arguably done with land-based aircraft. Your point, that the Yawata strike sounded the bell for the beginning of the strategic air war on Japan was answered perfectly by my edit. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's a very good point. I've just reverted back to your version. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Straight up! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

William P. Gottlieb photo credits

I reversed your removal of the credit in the Kai Winding article. Although I understand the intention, it appears that there is a standard for including credits for notable photographers with links back to their articles. WP:CREDITS references this. As you can see by http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:WhatLinksHere/William_Paul_Gottlieb, giving him credit for his photographs spans quite a few Jazz musician articles. I think in these cases the credit is earned. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking along the same lines as Uncle Milty, after having noticed that you did the same on a few articles on my watchlist. I haven't reverted anything yet, because I thought it might help if I understood your rationale, if you care to give it. Uncle Milty makes a point, that William Gottlieb is notable in his own right. And I see that, in the Billy Strayhorn article, while you removed the Gottlieb credit from one photo, there is another photo that leaves in the photo credit. This is to Carl Van Vechten. If the reason for leaving the credit is that, with a Misplaced Pages article, he is notable in his own right, well, then what about Gottlieb? Was there some reason you thought they should be treated differently? --Alan W (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have gotten to every Gottlieb photo credit in Misplaced Pages but I had to attend to real life for eight hours, which is why you can find articles I did not touch.

The way I see the issue is that Gottlieb's relationship to each jazz artist should be made plain in the article body so that the relevance of the photo credit it brought to the fore. Otherwise, the photo credit has no apparent connection. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that does sound reasonable. Probably the Van Vechten credit should go too, but leaving the date which places the period of the Strayhorn photo, which I think is relevant. Maybe I'll get to that myself eventually, but, here too, life intervenes, and right now I have other things to attend to. Thanks for the explanation. --Alan W (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I see why there needs to be a specific connection between the article subject and the photographer. Since WP:CREDITS states "If the artist or photographer is independently notable, though, then a wikilink to the artist's biography may be appropriate", and Gottlieb is a noted photographer specifically of jazz subjects, it seems quite reasonable to me to include a credit to him; certainly I see no need why they must be removed. Chubbles (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no need why the must be placed. The guideline allows for the image credit if appropriate, but does not demand it. For some of the smaller jazz artist articles, ones with just one Gottlieb photo and no others, I think the image credit takes away from the artist, as if the artist is only important because Gottlieb snapped a shot.

We have another option, which is to credit Gottlieb in a footnote. This solution puts Gottlieb on the page but does not have his link so prominent that the artist loses so many readers to clicks. Binksternet (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

T. S. Elliot talk page—thanks

Thanks for cleaning up there; as I fixed the article I should have checked the talk page as well—sorry. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No sweat. VWBot was pooping all over the place, requiring a lot of dustpan work. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart - warning

You have reverted sourced content from the article three times in the span of a few minutes, that's only wanton edit warring. If you do that again within the next day or so, you will be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed the sparring, but thanks for the reminder. Ask yourself why you reverted me twice in 12 minutes... You'll have to recuse yourself from using admin tools here. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You're the one reverting sourced content. I didn't say I'd block you. 3rr is the bright line and you will be blocked if you breach it. Please undo your edit warring now and wait for input from other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Storage format

You are invited to join the discussion at File talk:Feministsforlifeposter.jpg. Tomdo08 (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Removal of sourced material by IP from American exceptionalism

Hi Binkster. In this edit 24.126.172.165 has removed sourced info. Article is way from something I can make content comment on. Could you possibly look into this? Thank you!--Shirt58 (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

VW bot revert

Hi Binksternet, I see you have been doing good work trying to clean up the VW bot mess of Dec 10. I have been working backwards from the last bot edit and have got to here. I'm not sure editors have covered even half of the mal-edits as yet and with more days are more edits added to the articles. I wonder, if you are still working on this, it might make sense, as I am working backwards, for you to move forwards from the earliest change, so we don't wind up going over each others changes needlessly. It does seem like a priority as so much good work was frustratingly lost. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Best wishes Span (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got another time-sensitive project on my plate at the moment, so I'm leaving the VWBot reversions to others. The bot owner should have written his own reverting bot. :(

Binksternet (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

ok, no worries. good luck Span (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio

If you're going to "examine" articles for copyvio - make sure you actually do. You reintroduced translation copyvio here. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Graham Blyth

On 14 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Graham Blyth, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

proposed changes in lead of 1953 Iran coup article

I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue revising two sentences in the article lead.

• Changing the first sentence from:
  • The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.
  • to: The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh organized by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.

(NOTE: a new book (Iran and the CIA) provides some scholarly evidence that this sentence should be changed further but for now this is more accurate.)

• changing this phrase (which talks about an element in the motivation for US involvement in the coup):
  • from ... resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat.
  • to: the ... resolute prevention of Iran falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire".

The change is discussed here and reasons for the change also here --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bayandor book

At Talk:Darioush_Bayandor#Favorable_review you say that you found a review by Steven Simon in the publication Survival. How did you find that? Is it online? I would like to quote from the review.

No, not on the web. Only from a paid database searched from a library website. What I posted is the search result in it's entirety, i.e. no text of the review, just that word "favorable". I'm trying to get a photocopy of the review though. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sure I'll see it cited in the relevant article when and if you get it. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

2 weeks

Please do not edit summaries to obscure contentious edits. Use "wording" to change tone, not substance. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request to be unblocked. I will never use the edit summary "wording" to make substantial content changes. I definitely will not hide any of my edits which may be disputed or which are the subject of talk page discussions. I do not wish to conduct cause problems for other editors seeking to understand my edits. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Not trying to hide edits is only part of the problem. Tendentious editing is unacceptable anyway. In addition, you have promised in the past to behave from now on if you are not blocked, and unfortunately this makes it difficult to accept such an undertaking this time. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

JamesBWatson, that is a serious accusation, that I have made promises and not kept them. On what do you base your assertion? Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Reviewing admins please read Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Kurdo777_reverting_Binksternet. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have my sincere sympathy for all the good it does you. Let's hope no mysterious obscene anon posts appear on Xavexgoem's talk pages saying "this is Binksternet"! --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wish to be unblocked. I promise I will not take part in tendentious editing in Iran political articles. Specifically, I will from now on restrict myself to one revert per day per Iran topic article with the requirement of including the code "rv" (for revert) in the edit summary accompanied by a simultaneous talk page entry about the reversion, in the same manner that I followed to perfection after the 1 October locking of the Coandă-1910 article. I will not hide the nature of my edits from other editors—I wish to engage them about the content of the edits, not avoid discussion (or detection!) What I aim to do regarding the Iran 1953 coup article is to compose a sandbox version of the article so that editors can discuss the differences between it and the mainspace one. Another thing I wish to do is help put together a timeline of events leading up to the August 1953 coup in Iran, one in table format with columns for different sources, so editors can more clearly see how the expert sources differ on the topic. If this unblock request is granted, it will be the first time that a promise of mine has been formally accepted and put into practice on Misplaced Pages. This is in rebuttal to JamesBWatson's above assertion that I made promises in the past and did not keep them; to this date there has never been an offer of mine which has been accepted by reviewing administrators, so I cannot have broken any promises. I am true to my word—keeping promises is very important to me—and will hold to all that I have described here if unblocked. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Sounds good (1RR, rv if revert, etc). Good editing! Xavexgoem (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• If I have wrongly accused you then I apologise. Certainly at the time I wrote my message above I believed it was justified. At the moment I don't have time to check where I got that impression from, but I will try to do so within 24 hours. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • No sweat... thanks for the note back. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

1. "Re-outing Charlie Crist". Salon. April 24, 2009. Retrieved September 5, 2010.
2. "Crist Denies Trysts". New Times Broward-Palm Beach. October 19, 2006. Retrieved September 5, 2010.
3. "Re-outing Charlie Crist". Salon. April 24, 2009. Retrieved September 5, 2010.
4. Norman, Bob (October 19, 2006). "Crist Denies Trysts". New Times Broward-Palm Beach. Retrieved July 10, 2010.
5. Kinzer, All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (John Wiley & Sons, 2003), p.166
6. Kinzer, All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (John Wiley & Sons, 2003), p.166
7. Gasiorowski, Mosaddeq, p.274