Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:01, 9 January 2013

Binksternet	Articles created	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, Archive12 – October 2010 – January 2011 Archive13 – January–March 2011 Archive14 – April–July 2011 Archive15 – August–October 2011 Archive16 – November–December 2011 Archive17 – January–February 2012 Archive18 – March–April 2012 Archive19 – May–July 2012 Archive20 – August–October 2012 Archive21 – November–December 2012

Happy New Year!

Would you mind talking a look at my comment here and seeing if you're OK with what I've done. Thanks! Location (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a lot to say but I said it. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sexism

When you deleted the OR in the sexism article, you left the bizarre table in the introduction. Did you mean to do this, or did you misread the code some how? 88.114.154.216 (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I had intended to look into reliable sources about the table and see if it had a reasonable basis. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 1 – January 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Skyfall by Hahc21. Project News: A record, and issue and a future. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 190 articles passed in December! GA Task Forces: Results from the drive Member News: Two crucial users leave the project Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 3 January 2012

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please explain

Would you mind explaining why a review of the governance of Wikimedia UK, which will not be looking at anything to do with DYK, is a reason for extending restrictions on Gibraltar-related articles which were put in place well before the review had even been announced? And to put it on a more personal note, would you mind explaining why you think my 100th DYK nomination needs to be reviewed for "COI" and "promotionalism" when the topic means there isn't the slightest possibility of either being an issue? Prioryman (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would mind. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're not going to explain. Well, it's a genuine question. I simply don't see the logical connection between an internal matter for WMUK and how we manage DYK. It looks like I'm not going to be any the wiser until you or someone else explains it to me. Prioryman (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You put me off right away with an aggressive demand, changing the venue from WT:DYK to my talk page even though discussion is currently underway there, and pushing onto my plate the matter of your 100th DYK in which I have no interest or involvement or even awareness. You made the matter immediately personal, which it is not, with terms such as "COI" and "promotionalism" in quotes that I did not write myself in this singe entry of mine. So, no, I will not reply to this request of yours. Binksternet (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gravity Bone

I was wondering whether you were satisfied with the changes that Hahc21 has made to his nomination in response to your review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is okay now. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks on the Legolas2186 talk page, with the additional links. Those were entirely appropriate to add to the record/context for any future admins or editors trying to help untangle it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for your fortitude in blocking to protect Misplaced Pages's integrity. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Bink, are you going to talk to me now or not?

Just wondering because you seem to be very active around here and i want to let you know. Just because you have strong contradictory sources about Hiroshima leaflet date doesn't meant it's OK you come to the automatically conclusion you have to put it "No Leaflet dropped" side like it was one-sided as it was the actual facts the leaflets was NOT dropped at all. And it had been for like 9 hours since you left your comment on the article page so can you please reply to it? Because you didn't left reply to some of my comments on the article page XXzoonamiXX (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything worth responding to. You are complaining that the article says leaflets were not dropped, but that is wrong. The article says plainly "It is very likely that Hiroshima was leafleted in late July or early August". We have contradictory sources saying 27 July, 30 July, 1 August, 4 August, and even one survivor saying 5 August. That means we do not settle on one particular date. Binksternet (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

right so you're not going to respond to my comments, even though i had to dumbed it down for you? And the word "likely" means it was not an actual but it makes as it was probably true or not but doesn't that mean you had to put out that the leaflets in Hiroshima were NOT dropped at all such as the last sentence where the Peace Museum as it was an actual fact to the reader. All i wanted to put out i this, Author Bungei Shunjū Senshi Kenkyūkai didn't really stated in this book about the Peace Museum at all. He said that 12 Japanese cities were pelted with leaflets, none being in Hiroshima. However, other account said that within a few days prior to an atomic bomb attack on early August, leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima, along with several other Japanese cities, warning that they would be firebombed and advised residents to evacuate the city. The leaflets dropped on Hiroshima and other Japanese cities were displayed on the Hiroshima Peace Museum." And you would not let me make changes to the article either you did this just to maintain that one-sided POV or not as long you try to make it as it was actual proof. This is good just to maintain the WP:UNDUE, what i see now in the current "leaflet" section is not. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

When you read something you seem to get a different interpretation than when I read it. For instance, I see that Bungei Shunjū Senshi Kenkyūkai says "On 30 July, also, American planes dropped leaflets over the city of Hiroshima." The author talks about 12 cities that were mentioned in the leaflet's own text, none being Hiroshima. That is, Hiroshima was warned on 30 July that 12 other cities were to be destroyed, perhaps other cities, too, and that Japan will be destroyed. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think an average reader on Misplaced Pages would get that. If the leaflets were indeed warned on the 30th of July, then why don't you put on the "leaflet" section there was no leaflet sorties by the U.S. planes on the 30 of July according to the USAAF official which written in the "Matterhorn" book? The "Matterhorn" was just a book written by an author in 1983 who had a also different perspectives as well the others do based on strong evidences and factual experiences. And just because they are contradictory sources (As we talked about earlier) doesn't MEAN let's go to the conclusion or go down the road with the "No leaflet dropped" side and make it appear as it was an actual fact. A lot of folks who were in the Hiroshima Peace Museum stated the city was warned with leaflets drops in few days saying that city and others would be destroyed prior to an actual A-bomb yet did only mentioned about the carpetbombings. To not say that would be like saying the one such part of the Gassing of the Jews was just a bunch of lies as well. Another problem I had on the last sentence of the "Leaflet article" as i said again and again, that you mixed those two links together in the last sentence of the "Leaflet section" to make it appear that Hiroshima was NOT warned with leaflets at all DISPLAYED at the Hiroshima Peace Museum. Which is why i wanted to add the "F.J Bradley" statement saying that it was dropped on a few days prior to the A-bomb attack. That goes against the facts and twist them to make it appear as it was actual fact. You also the use the world "likely" as it was dropped or not but other like the "leaflets were not dropped" on Hiroshima. You said it yourself some weeks ago that you rather think the fact the leaflets were not dropped at all when they are other sources counters that. True, they were contradicting the actual dates it was dropped which is why i wanted to add the rest of the last two sentence in as i mentioned above. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the reader understands that the leaflets were really dropped on Hiroshima, even though the USAAF did not document it. If you can suggest a few word changes to make it clearer, let me know. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello...

...Binksternet. Está bien esta respuesta tuya, pero quisiera invitarte aquí, ya que veo que tu eres bastante imparcial y justo. Por favor, pasa pero si no tienes tiempo o no quieres, no te preocupes. Piedo disculpas anticipadas por mi inglés tan terrible, pero creo que se entiendo mi punto. Gracias. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no expertise in the various methods of quantifying album sales. I am hoping that some industry expert will take over the List of best-selling music artists, List of best-selling singles and List of best-selling albums to fix the terrible problems of over-estimation. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

We Can Do It!

Just to let you know, in case you don't spot it, that someone has suggested that We Can Do It! appears as TFA on 15th February. The discussion is at WP:TFAR; feel free to join in. Regards, Bencherlite 17:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I suggested the date here: Talk:We_Can_Do_It!#Proposed_date_for_Main_Page_appearance, and I put the suggestion on the long term forecast at TFA. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Your help needed

Hi. I noticed you have commented at Juan Manuel de Rosas. There is a DRN case related to that article. I'm trying to help out as a neutral Third Opinion-giver, to achieve a resolution. Any assistance you can provide would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look at it. It seems plain that some pro-Rosas views are dominating to the detriment of a more balanced view. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas

Every single book in English says that Rosas was a dictator who ruled through Terrorist tactics. There isn't any that says otherwise. Cambalachero has failed to provide one source that might back his claims. Not one. And even if he had done, why should the prevailing, overwhelming view among historians be given the same weight as one or two Revisionist historians? --Lecen (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)