User talk:Binarybits

From the above article: ^{[1] [2]}

Bearian (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits. I think, with your nudging, we have improved this article significantly. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Alex Gibney of 'The Daily Beast' did a documentary on Enron which was nominated for an Academy Award! Plus, he cites a book in his blog... He's also won an oscar and an emmy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorsteinVeblen (talk • contribs) 07:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, there's nothing "liberal" about Larry Summers! If Milton Friedman is your hero, then you are, by definition, conservative. It's not something which is controversial, it's just fact... Certainly, Larry would describe himself as conservative. In his Friedman article, he flat-out says he's not a Keynesian, but a "Friedmanite". Nothing wrong with that, but that means conservative.

ThorsteinVeblen (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your repeated efforts to add snarky little unsourced comments on Lawrence Summers are inappropriate. Your repeated efforts to insert the information that he is Jewish in inappropriate parts of the article may be somethign worse.Historicist (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You should read the edit logs more carefully. Binarybits (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Show-Me Institute, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Show-Me Institute. DickClarkMises (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we both got engaged during the same week in October (although my bride-to-be and I were in NYC for a LvMI event, and nowhere near a pastoral view). Congratulations! DickClarkMises (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Binarybits (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my remarks on the talk page. Thanks! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Binarybits, I'm sure you're right. I know pretty much nothing about the subject myself -- just an article I stumbled upon while looking at recent changes -- but the soundness of all your arguments is pretty self-evident. I've raised an RFC, and am confident that the opposing viewpoint will not withstand wider scrutiny. NB I may not stick around this article to watch it myself; there's no particular need. — Alan^✉ 17:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Binarybits (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, you may be interested to see that Ashley Todd was speedily deleted using CSD:G10 as the justification: "exists primarily to disparage its subject." I happen to disagree with this decision as the article was neutral and nothing on the AfD page implied it as an "attack" page, and content that this is out of process. I encourage you to chime in if you have an opinion either way at User_talk:Orderinchaos#Out_of_order_deletion_of_Ashley_Todd. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors are required to leave an 'edit summary'. Your recent edits have not had these.

Once disputed material has been re-added, the previous deleter cannot simply re-delete again (that starts edit wars). The issue must be taken to the discussion page. In other words, you would be in the wrong if you changed the page back to your previous edit. If you have an issue, take it up on the discussion page and seek a concensus of all editors before making your change again. Joe Hepperle (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[Here] and [Here] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Hepperle (talk • contribs) 06:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Show-Me Institute, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Show-Me Institute. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Locke9k (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Jason Hannasch, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Hannasch (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Libertarianism and Objectivism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Should you really be editing that article? The info linked to on your user page suggests a clear COI. Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I've been careful to avoid injecting POV, but feel free to challenge/revert any changes you think are inappropriate. Binarybits (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No doubt you've been careful, but you should follow WP:COI and limit yourself to the talk page. Odd nature (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• This edit introduces a subtle shift in the POV of the statement. It may be accurate, but you should leave that sort of thing to editors without a COI. After all, it was discussed on the talk page - surely someone else could have suggested and approved the wording.
• This one creates the perception in the average reader's mind that Cato is actually neutral, which is clearly isn't. Could easily be taken as whitewashing.
• This is troubling, since you appear to be replacing one POV with the "official" Cato POV. Find a reliable, third-party source.
• Edit warring to support an edit which "labels" Cato's critics is clearly unacceptable, given your COI.

Those are you last five edits to Cato or its founder. All of them are worrying, given your COI. If that's your idea of being "careful" to avoid injecting POV, then you most clearly need to stay out of the article space on Cato-related articles. Guettarda (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The first change was a response to a criticism of the POV of the previous wording that no one else had addressed in a couple of weeks. I would have been happy (and still would be) to have someone else suggest an alternative wording, but no one did so I tried to adjust the wording in a way that addressed the concerns raised. If you think the new wording is more favorable to Cato than the old (which wasn't my intention) please revert them and/or suggest new wording.

I'm not seeing the problems with the second edit. The article text already says Cato is non-partisan, and as I've pointed out most of Cato's peer institutions (including ones like Heritage and CAP that are more clearly aligned with a major political party) are in that category.

As far as the third edit goes, I barely know Ed Crane and I don't see how that edit casts Cato in a more favorable light.

You have a point on the final two edits. Please revert those if you think my characterization is inaccurate or out of line with the rest of the article. Thanks. Binarybits (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That's sort of the point of our COI guidelines. People with a conflict of interest often have a hard time seeing that that have one. Which is why it is strongly recommended that you don't edit articles where you have a COI. Guettarda (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, since you're on the lookout for COI problems, this page could use some attention. Binarybits (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Jesse Ventura, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  09:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You recently edited the Michael Milken page and removed content which was being discussed on the Talk page. In order to prevent an edit war, please respond to the talk page with your justification. Thank you. --71.83.125.186 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I mentioned your name. So rather than re-write my comments, here's notification that your name is mentioned here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Malia_Obama Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello BinaryBits, nice to meet you. I've noticed over the last 2 weeks on my watchlist that you've added the "dictator" label to the following articles below:

Fidel Castro = "and dictator"

Josef Stalin = "which he ruled as a dictator" (no ref)

Mao Zedong = "ruled as a dictator" (no ref)

Kim Jong-il = "which he rules as a dictator" (no ref)

Vladimir Lenin = "established a single-party dictatorship" (no ref)

Now, why some (or all) of these labels may be true in the common parlance, adding a weighted term such as "dictator" should mandate a reference, and a display or rationale on the talk page in reference to the prevailing sources in order to demonstrate that the descriptor doesn't violate WP:Undue or WP:POV. For instance, although some refs can be found to label a particular leader a "dictator", they should only be termed as such if the overwhelming majority of the sources do so. For instance, of the aforementioned 5 leaders, Encyclopedia Britannica only describes Stalin as a "dictator" and does not do so for Mao, Lenin, Castro, or Jong-il. As for the phrase "ruled as a dictator", this is even more problematic as it would need to be worded that way in the source - since the article is stating such declaratively, and not that "critics contend ____ ruled as a dictator" etc. Let me know your thoughts.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of these just seem obvious to me. Kim Jong-Il, for example, fits the definition of a dictator to a "T," and there's no shortage of reliable sources that describe him that way. The mere fact that some sources don't use the term doesn't mean that WP shouldn't. Binarybits (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that Jong-il might seem "obvious" to you (and me for that matter), the purpose of Wikipedia is to represent the consensus of the WP:Reliable sources on the topic. To use our own judgment on authoritarian, totalitarian or autocratic leaders would be considered WP:OR and run counter to the Wiki guidelines. Moreover, by not providing any reference for a weighted term like dictator, it doesn't allow the reader to decipher what type of source is being utilized for such a declarative claim. Since "dictator" is not a self-affirming term that leaders proudly refer to themselves by, it is somewhat analogous to terms like "strong man", "despot", "tyrant", "caudillo", "ruler", etc and comes close to the policy of WP:WTA. Similar to how Wiki strays from terms such as "terrorist/freedom fighter" or "liberator/oppressor" in the first line of an article as a declarative statement, use of "dictator" should probably at least accompany some sort of TP discussion or outline of rationale (and definitely a ref), so that users and readers can identify how the term came to be used in the article (this also protects it from hasty deletions & edit warring as it is firmly rooted with an accompanying TP consensus/basis).   Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Show-Me Institute, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Show-Me Institute (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You authored this a long time ago and since then a few people have done the same. Some want to blank it out. That is destructive! Kewlarticle (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about reverting but then I noticed that you are affiliated with the Cato Institute. Would you please share your thoughts on http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/misc/worktime/workweek_debate.html here so I can understand where you are coming from on this? I want to point out that material included differing views from both sides of the political spectrum, and WP:LEAD explicitly states that controversies should be indicated in articles' introductions. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lawrence Summers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Endowment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Mitch McConnell, you may be blocked from editing. Your recent edits are inappropriate. As discussed in earlier on this talk page, you should provide edit summaries, refrain from adding unsourced material or removing sourced material (Cato & Summers), or injecting POV (Castro & Mao). These are five separate improper edits. Instead of five separate warnings, which would have justified a posting on ANI, I'll leave it at this "level 3" warning. In any event, please stop. – S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. On Cato, the article had listed 8 donors and I added the ninth donor listed in the annual report. The source is the annual report referenced earlier in the same paragraph. On Summers, I forgot to add the source and will do so. I'm pretty sure it's not generally against the rules to add unsourced material to Wikipedia. Binarybits (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

When I looked at the Cato edit, it was simply a removal of the reference, the addition of another donor, and a change in the language. Without an edit summary to explain, the changes were unjustified. (Your clarification certainly helps.) Thanks, also, for adding the reference on Summers. Frankly, I did not look at the sources removed or added. My main concern was the unexplained edits. Summaries are important! And then I saw that the messages about these same concerns from a while back, so my message is more of a reminder. Most importantly, you are incorrect if you think it is "not against the rules to add unsourced material". One of the core content policies is WP:V, and WP:RS allows us to carry out that policy. Happy editing. – S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that. I'll try to document my edits better. Binarybits (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lawrence Summers, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Just two minutes earlier on your talk page you said you'd be more careful about these matters. The edit you made on Summers was most improper. – S. Rich (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't think there's a rule against adding a sentence without a corresponding citation. If you look through the Summers page (or practically any other page on Wikipedia), you'll see a bunch of sentences that don't have citations next to them. Are you going to yell at all the people who added those sentences? You should chill out. Binarybits (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The analogy is WP:SEWAGE. You're essentially saying "Look at all the other problems with various articles and this article. Because WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, okay for me to add my own unsourced/improper material." – S. Rich (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There are lots and lots of cases where people add material to Wikipedia without providing a citation. In this case, I had trouble imagining anyone disagreeing with the sentence I added so it didn't seem necessary to find a supporting citation. In an ideal world I'd have time to dig up a citation but I still think adding the sentence is a net contribution to the page. If you disagree and want to revert the edit that's fine, but it's ridiculous to call this disruptive editing. Binarybits (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is an AFD of an article you created. --Ego Hunter (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Pierre Omidyar. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I reverted your last two edits to Pierre Omidyar to restore the citation that you deleted so that I could then add the archive parameters. Next time please check https://archive.org/web/ first & use the archiveurl, archivedate, & deadurl parameters of {{cite web}}. Also, if you are unable to resolve a broken link, please mark it with {{dead link}} with the appropriate parameters instead of deleting it. Peaceray (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair point thanks! Binarybits (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Binarybits. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Walter huang, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Natureium (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, just a note regarding your remark here. The template {{when}} already leads to some explanations (see in particular Wikipedia:As of), but to add a bit more context: The basic problem is that we do not have control over when the statement will be read; especially in less widely read articles, such a sentence might not be updated for years. So a present tense claim that is correct right now might well become quite misleading for future readers of the same Wikipedia article. (And regarding this particular case, I'm sure you are aware that the office locations of tech companies are not always remaining the same, especially during the last two years.) I realize that this problem may a bit unfamiliar to folks who are accustomed to publishing their writings under a dateline. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Why would someone add this tag rather than just changing the tense and putting "in 2022?" Binarybits (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, for example because that would entail the additional work of ensuring that the statement is actually true at present time. And in this case it is not immediately clear that it is true. For example, if you follow the given citation - it doesn't help that it carries the apparently outdated note "Retrieved July 14, 2019" - the linked page currently does not mention Paris as an office location, and it also does not say explicitly that the headquarters are in San Francisco. I mean, one could then start to google, find that the company has job ads up for Paris right now, ponder whether that's sufficient as a reference, etc. Or analyze the page's revision history to find the edit where Paris had been added, and investigate whether maybe the cited page had listed Paris at that time (via the Wayback Machine), and so on. But that just illustrates how it usually takes much more time to fix such issues retroactively than it would have taken for the editors who originally added the information to include "as of" (and the source used) in the first place. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Got it thanks! Binarybits (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

––FormalDude talk 14:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, can you explain this in plain English? I'm not sure what this means or what I should do about it. Binarybits (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)