User talk:Binksternet/Archive13

New Years Message for WikiProject United States

With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Iran articles

I've encountered problems in the past trying to edit Iran-related articles. I'm wondering if you are encountering some the same issues? In the past I've found, in my opinion, a bloc of editors who aggressively remove any text, no matter how well sourced, which throw any kind of bad light on Iran. As a result, I've avoided editing Iran-related articles as I feel it's a waste of time to add sourced information to an article knowing that it will be reverted within minutes. Of course, the information I add isn't necessarily all negative about Iran. Or is it a more complex issue than this? Cla68 (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It is no more complex than that. Binksternet (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's any consolation then, you're not the first one to find out what it's like to try to edit articles about Iran. For some reason, the editing atmosphere around those articles has gone unnoticed by WP's administration. Cla68 (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't the job of administrators to patrol all articles. If you don't report unacceptable behavior on WP:ANI, if you don't bother reporting edit-warring on WP:3RR, if you fail to issue escalating warnings to POV pushers, if you neglect to go to WP:RFPP and ask for article protection when there's a content dispute, then administrators will be busy elsewhere. Those reporting venues I mentioned are where many admins first notice that there's a problem that needs attention. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I will keep in mind the options you list. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

About that 'unknown person'

Greetings! Regarding this, I've just started a discussion on the Village Pump about this issue -- he seems to have uploaded a picture of himself on numerous articles, and I'd like some consensus as to whether or not this is acceptable (I actually didn't see anything specifically addressing this in policy). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Policy will have to catch up to practice which is to remove personal photos. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Smaart

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For showing true dedication in expanding Smaart from a mediocre stub to this all in the middle of an AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you never got a review for it at T:TDYK, but I thought you deserved recognition. I've approved it and moved to the prep area and it'll go into the queue when I've got a complete set of hooks to move. It'll be on the Main Page in about 32 hours if my maths is correct. Anyway, good effort. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and especially for the rescue star! Cheers – Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. It's in queue 6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I semi-protected your userpage

...due to vandalism I've seen on it coming from new/unregistered accounts. Any registered user can still edit it. I assumed you may want this protection (my view is all user pages should be semi-protected by default), but if not, let me know and I can unprotect it. I can also protect your talk page similarly. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't swamped by the vandalism, but I like having your mosquito net. Heh heh... Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Smaart

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd proposed change in 1953 Iran coup article lead

Hi, I'm doing another poll of editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of revising a phrase in the article lead. It's a repeat but I didn't explain it well in the first poll.

• 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".[Gasiorowski, Mosaddeq, p.274]

The reason for the change is discussed here and is, briefly, that the sentence as is doesn't match the rest of the article, (and doesn't match most of the books that deal with US motivation in the coup).
The US motivation section gives only one author (Abrahamian) who thinks the US leadership wasn't seriously worried about the possibility that Iran might become a communist country, while listing several who thought cold war motivation of the US was important.
An even more thorough examination of the sources dealing with issue is here.

Hope you have time to give it a look see, --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Response at Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Calafia

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I threw my name in the hat on November 19. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

B-24

Hi, I see you reverted my B-24 edit. I was wondering what your opinion on that part is. My correction was: There are two flying B-24's in the world, a B-24J named Witchcraft of the Collings Foundation in Stow, Massachusetts. The other, "Ole 927" was one of the very early Liberators ordered by the British before the beginning of Lend-Lease. She started out as a B-24A but was converted to a transport configuration, re-designated LB-30 and never delivered to the RAF. The CAF is in the process of reconverting her from an LB-30, back to B-24A configuration. The old text is taken straight from the Collings Foundation's website and in my opinion can hardly be called a neutral text. It favors their aircraft which they market as 'the only flying B-24' because they sell rides on it. However, you can't ignore the fact that the CAF also has a B-24 that is flying. It was modified as a cargo aircraft and redesignated LB-30, but the CAF has been converting it back to B-24A status. All the cargo stuff is out and the gun positions were put back in. True, it is missing the bomb doors, but these are planned to be put back in at a later date. I live in Europe and have nothing to do with either Collings or CAF, But I feel Wiki should provide a neutral statement in this matter. I feel my revision provided a better and more neutral view of the matter. Maybe the first line should be further modified to 'There are two flying Liberators in the world,' to make it completely neutral? I look forward to hearing yours :) PS: it is refered to as a B-24A on the Wiki B-24's survivors page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fouga (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There were a couple of problems with your change, the biggest being that you removed a cite, non-neutral as it may be. Rather, you ought to have added a cite from CAF to balance the picture. Beyond that, your change was poorly written.

Going forward, the article should have cites for both aircraft, and should be rewritten again to match them. This magazine article from 2007 has good info about Ol' 927. Your suggestion of having "two Liberators" is a fine one. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change 2.1 in 1953 Iran coup article lead

Aliwiki (here) and Kurdo (here) have both made complaints about the proposed changes that I think have merit, so I'm revising the change so that Iran falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire"[7] refers to the US administration point of view and not a statement of fact.
The to-be-revised text and revised text are in italics. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Current wording

• "Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott.[Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran] while using Iranian agents to undermine his government.[Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, p.3 (In October 1952 Mosaddeq "orders the British embassy shut" after learning of British plotting to overthrow him.)] With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup.[Kinzer, Stephen. All the Shah's Men. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008, p. 3]"

• "The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth[Kinzer, Stephen, Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (Henry Holt and Company 2006). p. 200–201] as well as the 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."

Proposed change

• "Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott.[Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran] while using Iranian agents to undermine his government.[Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, p.3 (In October 1952 Mosaddeq "orders the British embassy shut" after learning of British plotting to overthrow him.)] By 1953 both Britain and the United States had more conservative governments and the new US Eisenhower administration reversed its predessor's opposition to a coup, fearing that Iran was in danger of falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire".[Little, Douglas. American Orientalism: the United States and the Middle East since 1945, I.B.Tauris, 2003, p. 216. ISBN 1860648894]"

• "The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth[Kinzer, Stephen, Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (Henry Holt and Company 2006). p. 200–201] as well as the prevention of possibility that Iran might fall under the influence of the Communist Soviet Union.[Gasiorowski, Mosaddeq, p.274]" --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the change is the same as the original one and is discussed here

Hope you have time to give it a look see, --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will look it over and reply at the article's talk page, as usual. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Barstow, California

You and I both reverted the same non-notable addition to Barstow, California and your edit notes it as a good faith edit. I don't think so. The same IP added the same information to both Lakeville, Minnesota and to Waconia, Minnesota - so either this guy is writing his book on the move, or its simple vandalism !  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So WP:COI, eh? Not good faith. I don't think this guy will go away. Perhaps it's time to bump up a level on him. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bloody Saturday (photograph)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I see this picked up 24,400 hits while on the Main Page yesterday. Well done! —Bruce1ee^talk 06:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing quite like having a burned, crying baby photo on the Main Page! :/

Thank you for your good wishes. Binksternet (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There were 6700 views of Battle of Shanghai, 1600 views of Life (magazine), 10,800 views of the cropped photo File:Shanghai_crying_baby_detail_100px.jpg and 7700 views of the normal size photo File:BattleOfShanghaiBaby_retouched.jpg. What a haul! Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What a haul indeed. Unfortunately only the hits for the DYK article counts for WP:DYKSTATS :( —Bruce1ee^talk 07:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, unfortunately. Say, I wonder if there is a way to have people click on a cropped 100px image thumbnail at the top of DYK and be taken to the larger version of the image, or be taken to the related article? I think 10,800 people got irritated or confused when they clicked on the photo detail. Binksternet (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Injured Chinese baby crying after Japanese bomb attack in Shanghai, August 28, 1937

Injured Chinese baby crying after Japanese bomb attack in Shanghai, August 28, 1937

This can be done using the "link" parameter. Clicking on the first thumbnail takes you to the full version of the image; clicking on the second thumbnail takes you to the corresponding article. It's an intriguing idea, but I don't know how the DYK community would take to it. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic! I will ask the "DYK community" whether they prefer one or the other, or neither. I just cannot see the reader benefiting from a click-through which takes him to the tiny cropped version. Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with clicking through to the full image, but they may object to clicking through to the DYK article, as this could be seen as fishing for extra hits. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see how that could be a concern, though it is not what drives me. I just want the reader to get something useful out of the click. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

expanding Chancellorsville

Just dropping by to say that is great work you did to expand Battle of Chancellorsville. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. (I don't think you had enough time to read the entire article before sending this. :-)) Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't eh? Heh heh... I could see very quickly the tenor of the work. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Spy family...

Hi I just wanted to know what is happening...?

The reason I am trying to add a couple of paragraphes in the Attack on Pearl Harbour article is because I have an assignment due on the 31st of January.

The assignment is to add 2-3 paragraphes on a piece of AMerican History... If you are not going to accept my request to add please let me know as soon as possible so I can find another thing to work on.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmz10 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Your addition was not very well written, and the article you chose is one of Wikipedia's top level articles, a WP:Featured article. Poorly written text will not survive very long in a featured article! You will do better to add three paragraphs to an article that is not as well developed. How about choosing the Kuehn Family article? Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please give me an article that proves that the information the Kuehns were send were not too useful. I searched for Gordon Prange but could not find nothing.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmz10 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are two Gordon Prange books, with references to Kuehn:

• Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History
• At dawn we slept: the untold story of Pearl Harbor

Go get 'em! Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Renault FT

Are you sure "FT" isn't just an M-number? There should at least be another article covering just the FT-17 variant. Marcus Qwertyus 19:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not absolutely sure of anything, but I thought the FT designation referred to the basic tank model, allowing for variation in weaponry and utility, and mainly differentiated by year: model 1917 and model 1918 being called FT 17 and FT 18.

The Renault FT article did not appear to me to be only about the 1917 model—it appeared to be about all variants. Binksternet (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

To preserve the edit history it may be best to keep the article at its previous name and create Renault FT anew. In related news, at some point I'd like to remove the Mark II, III, IV etc. derivatives from the Mark I page. Marcus Qwertyus 02:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

May I nominate you for the honors? I'm not as sure-footed on these topics as I'd like to be. Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Crist

Hello, I am currently working on an edit in the Vaughn Walker article. In looking through the Charlie Crist article, I found that you had a very similar experience when making that edit with a misunderstanding of the WP:WELLKNOWN policy. I am wondering if you could take me through all the steps you used to finally reach consensus and clarify that policy. I feel that the situations are exactly analogous. My sincere thanks. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep at it, don't let up on the talk page. Settle for a partial or compromise solution if one is offered. Start an RfC: {{rfctag|bio|pol}}. The Walker case is weaker than the Crist one in that Walker is not a state governor (not as WP:WELLKNOWN) and there was no film made about his orientation. The case's strengths are that Walker has not denied being gay, and he has been called upon to judge cases involving homosexuality, and political observers have in turn judged his handling of those cases with his sexuality as a major element. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken Burns effect

Hello,
The link on zooming redirect to zoom but it's a disambiguation page. I suggest you place a pipe to Focal length. Also Hitchcock zoom redirect to Dolly zoom. Best. 204.174.87.29 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, zooming in general is a complete mess. Somebody needs to take the various topics in hand. Not me. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I placed a call at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. 204.174.87.29 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition

Starting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:

1. Portal:United States
2. the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard
3. the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
4. and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.

You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Headphones: Impedance

Hello. I see that today, you removed most of the text that I inserted yesterday in the above section. Here's what the section looked like this morning:

"The electrical impedance of a pair of headphones is a figure of merit supplied by the headphone manufacturer, and has units of ohm. Modern headphones which are designed for high fidelity audio monitoring and which have "dynamic" speakers (the majority of headphones are of this type; see section below) have impedance values ranging from 25 ohm to 600 ohm.[citation needed] The impedance of each speaker in a pair of stereo headphones is equal to the stated impedance of the headphones, since each speaker is driven by its own audio source (the left or right channel of the audio amplifier).

"Headphones that have an impedance of around 32 ohm are well suited for use with a portable audio amplifier that's powered by a low voltage battery set (such as the audio amp in a CD player or an iPod; for example, one that's powered by a 3 VDC battery set, such as 2 AA batteries). This is because the theoretical maximum peak to peak audio output voltage that an audio amp powered by a 3 VDC battery set can supply (on either its left channel or its right channel) is 3 V peak to peak. It would be able to supply this voltage only if it were an ideal Class B audio amp. A typical real-world audio amp powered by a 3 VDC battery set can supply about 1.5 V peak to peak. A voltage of 1.50 V peak to peak is equal to 530 mV rms (root mean square).[citation needed]

"If one of the speakers in a pair of headphones with an impedance of 32 ohm is supplied a voltage of 530 mV rms, the power delivered to that speaker is 8.77 mW (because power equals rms voltage squared divided by impedance); and the total power delivered to the headphones is twice that value, 17.6 mW. But if the headphone impedance is 250 ohm, the total power delivered to the headphones is only 2.25 mW.

"At least one manufacturer offers the same headphone model in a choice of 3 impedances: Beyerdynamic offers the DT 990 headphone with impedance values of 32 ohm, 250 ohm, or 600 ohm. Beyerdynamic says that the 600 ohm version provides better audio fidelity, because in that version, the mass of the moving element of each speaker is less than in either the 250 ohm or 32 ohm versions. [citation needed]"

Here's what it looks like now:

"The electrical impedance of a pair of headphones depends on the model, and is in the range 25 ohms to 600 ohms.[citation needed] High impedance headphones of about 600 ohms have been popular among tube amplifier aficionados, and in classroom or studio situations requiring many headphones connected in parallel to the same source. Low impedance headphones yield a louder sound from a standard headphone jack, and use less power—an important consideration for portable electronics.[4]"

Because you removed the text that describes the voltage limitation of a portable audio amplifier, I believe that you removed the key point that explains why a low-impedance headphone is better suited for use with a portable audio amplifier than a high-impedance headphone. And it's not that true that a low impedance headphone necessarily draws less power than a high impedance headphone-- the efficiency of a headphone (sound energy produced divided by electrical energy input) is not directly related to the impedance of the headphone. I see that you've contributed to many articles on Wikipedia; I've only contributed to a few. But I do believe that you deleted important information from this section; and there is now a factual error in the text: "low-impedance headphones draw less power than high-impedance headphones". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbennett555 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I pulled out your text because it was not supported by references; see WP:CITE for advice on how to add text to Wikipedia articles with a much higher chance of it not being deleted. Regarding the error about drawing less power, I will now go correct that bit. Low-impedance headphones require less power than high-impedance ones to achieve the same SPL. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

About 2 weeks ago, I did some "research" using the internet (including Wikipedia) because I didn't understand why the vast majority of headphones intended for mobile use have a relatively low impedance-- usually around 32 ohm. I found many websites that make the claim that low impedance headphones are "more efficient" (ie, the ratio of sound energy produced to electrical power input is better with a low impedance headphone); but I didn't see any websites that say that the reason is simply that the mobile audio amplifier can't produce much voltage.

After thinking about the issue and making some measurements using equipment that I have at home, I'm convinced that the main reason that mobile-use headphones have an impedance of around 32 ohm is the voltage limitation of the mobile audio amp. This is why I included that statement in the text that I posted this weekend, which you deleted. (That statement was partly based on measurements I made at home, but I also believe that it's fairly obvious to a person with some experience with basic electronics; and I included explanatory text.)

Regarding the question, "Are low impedance headphones more efficient than high impedance headphones?", I've tried to find references that either support this claim or refute it; and I can't. But I don't think that that issue is the important reason that mobile-use headphones have an impedance around 32 ohm. What reference(s) do you have that support this claim?

FYI, I've looked at a number of manufacturer headphone data sheets (eg, Sennheiser and Beyerdynamic) to see whether the efficiency rating of certain headphones, which are available in different choices of impedance, differs with the impedance of the headphone. Every data sheet I've looked at has the same efficiency rating (eg, 96 dB SPL audio output measured with an electrical input power of 1 mW), whether the headphone is ordered with an impedance of 32 ohm, 250 ohm, or 600 ohm. (For example, the Beyerdynamic DT 990; and the Beyerdynamic T5 and T50P.)

Even if turns out to be true that low impedance headphones are more efficient, I'm quite sure that there is little difference in efficiency between headphones of different impedances. I think that clearly, the important reason that mobile-use headphones have an impedance of around 32 ohm is simply due to the limited audio voltage that a mobile audio amp can produce; and you removed that statement, and the supporting explanation, from the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbennett555 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:NOR where it says that there is no original research allowed on Wikipedia. That means you cannot measure impedance and voltage at home and report your findings. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What about the other question I asked you (2 times): What reference(s) do you have for the statement, "Low impedance headphones are more efficient than high impedance headphones."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbennett555 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not answer the other questions—twice—because I figured you would look at the cited source: "Headphones Basics - Choosing the Right Pair". That article says "high impedance sets require a higher driving signal to produce the same level of sound output in comparison to low impedance headsets. This means that low impedance headphones will sound louder when plugged in devices with low output voltages such as portable CD players, etc. ... Worth keeping in mind here that the lower the impedance, the more efficient headphones are in converting the incoming electrical energy into sound."

Does that take care of your concern? Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not seeing that you had included the reference listed above. (The reference was in the article; I looked for it in the above text.)

I looked at the website "Headphone Basics-- Choosing The Right Pair"; and yes, on that website, it says: "the lower the impedance, the more efficient headphones are in converting the incoming electrical energy into sound." But I still haven't found any (real) source that supports that claim. I say real source, because on that website, there is no reference listed for the statement.

So is this the way Wikipedia is supposed to work: If a person can find some un-referenced text that supports a particular claim on any website, he can put the text in a Wikipedia article, and "reference" the text with the address of the website that it was copied from? That's essentially a circular argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbennett555 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not pretending the webpage is a very highly regarded source, I am just acknowledging that it exists as a source. It would be better to have a known expert be the source. Perhaps Glen Ballou's book Handbook for Sound Engineers has something. The main reason I used the bit from practical-home-theater-guide.com is that the writer is right about that part. However, the article has internal conflicts: for instance, it describes low headphone impedances as being in the range 75 to 150, then it says that headphones for portable devices should not have impedances higher than 64. In my experience with Wikipedia, it is okay to take the truthful bits from a page which otherwise has flaws. The trump card would be a more expert source, if you can find one. Binksternet 17:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. There's some helpful info there. But I'm puzzled about something: you say that the statement on the webpage that says low impedance headphones are more efficient is correct. But why do you believe that? That's exactly the issue that I've brought up here-- I can't find any evidence to support that statement, and that website doesn't cite a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbennett555 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not say anything about efficiency, though the website source does. I just know that lower impedance means that the headphones draw more power because they are closer to being a short circuit. I know that lower impedance headphones will get louder than high impedance ones if they are both supplied a given voltage. Efficiency is another matter, one related to sensitivity, and a topic I did not try to introduce into the "Impedance" section of the Headphones article.

This source from Chu Moy of Headwize says that dynamic headphones are generally more efficient than isodynamic or electrostatic. It says efficiency is measured by sensitivity, that dynamic headphones have a 90 dB and higher sensitivity, and that portable electronics headphones ought to have 100 dB and higher sensitivity. One example line is Sony MDR-V6 and its cousins, all having 106 dB or higher sensitivity. Sensitivity will be affected by such physical and mechanical traits as open-back or closed-shell type, with open types being less sensitive; sensitivity is not equivalent to impedance. The headphones article currently does not have a "Sensitivity" paragraph but it could probably use one under "Electrical characteristics". Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bruce Jackson (audio engineer)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

1RR

Hi, I thought you are still on a revert parole - has it expired? Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm keeping close track of the number of my reverts. At the Vaughn Walker article, I have reverted exactly once—not once per day—just once. Your own reversion was among the most unthinking I've seen there, changing good refs to a disputed one. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well sometimes my heart overrules my head - you know me by now - I find this type of sexual rumor awful - i8ts not worthy of addition and never will be ever. I reverted my edits completely - Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Henri Coanda defamation

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Henri Coanda defamation and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Howard Hughes

Excuse me, but you reverted an edit I made to the Howard Hughes article, claiming it was "vandalism". Since when is a reference in The Simpsons to Hughes "incorrect information"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matariel (talk • contribs) 22:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Matariel (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh. I see that you added some uncited trivia from the Simpsons, the connection to Howard Hughes not noted by a reliable source. Forgive me for deleting your addition of trivia; I thought it was vandalism when I saw this change which introduced the "Spruce Moose". I apologize for any impression I gave you about you being a vandal. The text, though, about the Simpsons, is not worthy of the article until you find a published, verifiable and reliable source which discusses it. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I linked to the wikipedia page of the episode in question, which more fully explains the Hughes references, and cites external sources for the information. I wasn't aware the double referencing was required, since in the same section a Beverly Hillbillies reference is quoted, but the citation leads to a placeholder webpage. Matariel (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems obvious to you and me, but the connection between Hughes and Burns must be noticed by reliable sources, perhaps a TV critic in a newspaper. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to include this. There is no credible question that the Simpson's portrayed a rich recluse building a "Spruce Moose". The link from there to Hughes is self-evident, far from the "extraordinary claims" that really need legwork. Much as I dislike these "in pop culture" lists (Notability of Hughes to his tribute doesn't imply commutative notability of the tribute to Hughes), the Simpsons are fairly major, it's a major theme for a whole episode and so I think this one is, to coin a phrase, "big enough to fly". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What so few people realise, and that has been shamefully hidden from the public record, is Hughes' 1909 transatlantic jet flight. He told Elvis about this, out in the Nevada desert one night, but there has since been a conspiracy by the Romanian-Canadian conspiracy to hush it up.

LOL!

Regarding the "Spruce Moose" and Burns acting neurotic in the same manner as later Hughes, I feel that if the pop culture bit is notable then there will be a critic that has noticed it and commented. That's a pretty low bar to entry, and I don't think it too much to ask. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahem...

Hi, was this [1] deliberate? I don't think you should use Twinkle-rollback on that. It looked like a good-faith (albeit misguided) request. Of course, somebody ought to explain to the editor why that is not a matter for Arbcom, but I don't think the arbs like to have such requests summarily removed like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I sure blew that call. I looked at the edit for a very brief moment and thought the user was vandalizing the page. I will undo my mistaken edits. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Project

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for being one of the people that helped to raise the quality of the Manhattan Project article.

This user helped promote Manhattan Project to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers to all. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry!

I didn't mean to add unsourced content to Lava Lamp! I didn't know! I'm so sorry! Aerosprite the Legendary Leave me a message! 13:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Escort Fighter

Read that section carefully and you will see that what i wrote needs no citation.

Gaijin-san

After my last cmt here, I had an attack of conscience. I've tried to be patient, & tried not to say, "You're being a closed-minded idiot", but I'm not sure how close I am to the line, & I'd prefer not to cross it over something so dumb. Would you have a look? Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't judge whether your patience is too thin now or is just right for the situation. I do not like the fact that the guy is not quoting any experts, and I think your comments about his intractability have been spot on. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't do well with stubborn like this. ;p I'd already decided to step back if there was no movement after my last comment, even take the page off watchlist for a bit (so I'm not tempted ;p). I just found myself wanting to say, "Stop being a moron", which didn't seem like a good idea. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

nested not used anymore

Hi. Concerning this edit of yours I would like only to inform you that |nested= isn't used anymore. Banners are automatically nested inside WikiProjectBannerShell. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I merely copied that stuff from a related article. I haven't been keeping track of those parameters. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Piezoelectric Audio Amplifier

Thanks for the response concerning the references and the chances in the article “piezoelectric audio amplifier”
The word Piezoceramic and piezo are mostly also used for piezoelectric.

The references that were used in the article are not promotional material and is also not intended to advertise for a product. Because of the specific scientific item, the core information off this item is founded in datasheets and application notes. Therefore the page numbers were mentioned. Even in the application note PAA-StepUpBTL-01 there is a full description of the schematics, everybody can make this, so this is not an advertising for a product. Please consider to add these sources in the reference. They were the result of a study for driving piezo audio loudspeakers what are full range loudspeakers and is a new technology.
Text:

• Maxim inc, datasheet MAX9788, Class G ceramic speaker driver,p.7-p.9
• Linear technology, datasheet LT3469, Piezo microactuator driver with boost regulator, p.5-p.6
• National semiconductor, datasheet LM4960, Piezoelectric speaker driver, p.8-p.11
• Texas Instruments, datasheet TPA2100P1, Mono class-D Audio Amplifier for Piezo/Ceramic speakers,p.9 – p.18
• Sonitron, Application note PAA-StepUpBTL-01, Piezoceramic Audio Amplifiers: DC-DC Stepupconverter – Bridge Tied Load, p.2-p.3

Awaiting your reply

Sonitron Support (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be based mostly on secondary sources, and those manufacturers notes are primary sources. See WP:SECONDARY for the guideline. The way you inserted those links as references here was, to my eye, a way to get the manufacturer you represent into the article. Promoting Sonitron is not something you are allowed to do, per WP:ADV.

You are still in violation of username policy. You can do two things: go to WP:CHU and change your username, or abandon this one and simply begin a new one representing only yourself as a person. The third option of doing nothing will soon find your username blocked. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Username will be changed. I do believe that the mentioned references give good information about this common used new technology. There is no intention of making a kind of promoting for any company otherwise it would not be written so carefully.Sonitron Support (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC at 1953 Iranian coup d'état

Lots of response, no consensus. Responses seem to have died down. What do you do next in such a situation? --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I would not say that there is no consensus. Some of the arguments are weak as hell, and should count little or not at all. At WP:ANI, ask for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Since when are the WP:RFC requests "closed" by anyone? You seem to have mistaken WP:RFC with WP:RFD. RFC requests are automatically ended by the RfC bot after thirty days of discussion. Also, requesting the same "proposals" over and over in different venues, hoping for a different result, is considered a form of forum-shopping. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's out of line. I have made no mistake between RFC and RFD. An uninvolved admin closing an RfC ties a neat bow on the result, if one can be determined other than "no consensus". Since when is an article talk page RfC forum shopping? Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not how RFCs work. No RFC request has ever been "closed" by an "uninvolved admin". RFC is neither a vote , nor a request for move/deletion that would need closing. RFC requests are just a "posting on the wall" or invitation for input from the broader community, that stay posted for 30 days. Also, an admin's input in a content dispute has no more value than other editors, as an admin cannot make editorial judgments or take sides in content disputes. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the procedural advice. That bit about forum shopping sounds like you're worried more about the outcome than about procedure. Binksternet (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I am just letting you guys know what the rules and procedure are, on the record, so that you'd not be able to plead "I didn't know" in the future, as you have done so many times in the past, when you've broken the rules and ignored procedure. So I'm not here to argue with you, and this is my last comment for now. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What "so many times in the past"? Poisoning the well. Thanks for a last comment, an untruthful jab. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet: I'll ask an uninvolved admin to close the RfC and see what happens. If they tell me "RFC requests are automatically ended by the RfC bot after thirty days of discussion," then ... I'll wait.

Kurdo: What do you mean I (or Binksternet) have been "requesting the same "proposals" over and over in different venues, hoping for a different result, is considered a form of forum-shopping"? Yes we've (Binksternet not so long) been arguing about this for years, but this is the first RfC I've made for the 1953 Coup article.

And as for your "just letting you guys know what the rules and procedure are, on the record", what reason would Binksternet or I or any of the other people you been picking fights with have for considering you some impartial source of accurate information???? You're not an admin, you're not uninvolved, you're an aggressive editor who's been fighting for years to keep important information from reliable sources out of the coup article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Machito

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you read my references of tango?

Did you read it??? If you wanna, I can translate it to you. "My commentareyas" are supported in realiable references. Do you know anything about tango?? I didn't invent anything, I olnly wrote some infromation that wasn't written. Am I a bad person or an objective person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipo yocasta (talk • contribs) 15:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If you remove the UNESCO conclusion that Uruguay and Argentina both originated the tango, then you are not helping to build the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

OK! I agree with you in it. I won't change the "UNESCO TITLE"...but if you read that I wrote, you own will see where the Tnago borned. I don't want to discuss. If you read the references given by me, you'll see... OH! and if you show me, only ONE realiable reference of Tango in uruguay at the late 19th century, I will accept the co-originator Uruguay. But till this moment, please don't forbid my contributions in Wikipedia. --Edipo yocasta (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The guideline about WP:Neutral point of view tells us that when we have conflicting references, we deliver the information to the reader in a manner that gives each source the proper level of weight, with attribution. The UNESCO source is top level. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

General sanctions on abortion articles

Just letting you know, in case you didn't already, that abortion-related articles are now subject to general sanctions, including but not limited to 1RR. Going by what's already occurred (two editors blocked at Lila Rose and the sanctions were imposed what, a day ago?), it looks like there's going to be a lot of admin involvement as well as a lot of attempts to game the system. Be careful! I like editing with you, and even a short block would be a shame. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I certainly will not violate 1RR. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

Dont- remove my changes without any explanation and moreover saying "i don-t understand in a good way the English!!! First, you should study this language. You are always mentioning UNESCO UNESCO........ UnESCO only aprove the Tango like "World heritage", an that-s all. I am writting about the beginnings of Tango. If you remove again without understand everything I wrote, I will denounce you to the good Wikipedians. --Edipo yocasta (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Logo stack, ProtectMarriage vs Courage Campaign.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Logo stack, ProtectMarriage vs Courage Campaign.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the file is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 20:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am confident we can sort this appropriately with out deletion. I placed a "hang on" tag and added a defense on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

CFD follow-up

You recently participated in this discussion. There is now a follow-up discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

OK! master, then... can you show me any reference of "uruguayan tango" before 1905??? If you do that, I will believe the "shared" origin, but till you show me something, I won't believe this big lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipo yocasta (talk • contribs) 22:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

UNESCO says it is a shared origin, that tango came from Argentina and Uruguay. Wikipedia does not try to show the absolute truth, it shows instead the published truth. UNESCO tops the list of publications about tango, because it is a global judge of cultural worth, made up of neutral authorities on the subject. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

OK! then you don't care the absolute truth... Now I am understandidng the few realiability of Wikipedia... I think, if you not even show ealiable texts which could demonstrate the "absolute truth", you are lying to people.

Moreover: Where did you read UNESCO sayed "The Tango came from Argentina and Uruguay"??... UNESCO onyl sayed: "Tango is heritage of Argentina and Uruguay", but It has never denied that the begginings of Tango developed only in Buenos Aires. Did I tell my thought in a good way??? Do you understand me??? --Edipo yocasta (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedian not seeking the real truth = bad Wikipedian --Edipo yocasta (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Truth

Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pacifica (statue)

Orlady (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: CPC

Thanks. I'd already reverted once, and couldn't again. What do you think ought to be done about these drive-by removals of content for obviously biased reasons? Since the sources aren't cited in the lead, one can't really revert as vandalism, and it would be obnoxious to put all the citations in the lead since we have a section. Should we choose a few and add them to the lead? Put a hidden note by the sentences that keep getting removed, advising the drive-bys to actually read the article? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The most recent drive by was IP anon. If that continues we can protect the article. Binksternet (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought about it (other users that have done the same have also been IPs), but it's probably a little too sporadic to get it semiprotected. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not so unusual for bitterly fought articles to have sourcing in the lead section. Named refs, repeated up top and in the middle. Binksternet (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oy. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing RfC at 1953 Iranian coup d'état

As far as I can tell, my request at WP:ANI was deleted without comment. I may have missed it but I couldn't find it in the archive. Any suggestions? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony / The Revolution

I notice you are administrating the articles on Susan B. Anthony, the SBA and The Revolution, and you reverted the references I gave on all but one, so I hope you do not mind that I speak to you directly. The Women's Archives is currently the only existing archive of original scans of The Revolution on the Internet, and thus I don't understand removing this reference in the article on Susan B. Anthony, which contains an entire section on The Revolution precisely because it was one of the most important things she did in her life's work on Suffrage for women. If you could explain why that reference does not belong in the article, I would appreciate it. If you feel that it should be in the article, but perhaps is better placed elsewhere, I will gladly add the reference where you suggest.

Secondly, I wonder why you would remove the reference I gave in the article on the debate about Susan B. Anthony's position on abortion, when that same section of the article in question quotes Elizabeth Cady Stanton from the exact article I referenced (without the full context of the essay she'd written in The Revolution, hence my provision of the reference). The argument builds its case in part on the idea that Elizabeth Cady Stanton's piece "Infanticide and Prostitution" is an important plank in support of the claim that Susan B. Anthony would have held the same position on abortion that the SBA holds, but without the full context of the original article in The Revolution, it is impossible to understand why this plank in support of the claim is, in fact, debatable. If you think there is a more appropriate place for that reference to go -- as it is undoubtedly germane to the discussion, and no other reference to the complete context of the original copy of The Revolution exists -- where would you suggest that it go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.118.140 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The assumption that whatever Stanton voiced is the same thing that Anthony believed is wrong. The two women were political partners but the differences in their beliefs caused Anthony much grief, as can be seen in her letters. Stanton continually wished for every one of womanhood's ills to be addressed, the sooner the better, but Anthony felt that a more focused effort was the way forward, attacking only the absence of voting rights for women. On that single issue, Anthony knew the most agreement was possible by the most women.

Ann Dexter Gordon, the world's foremost Anthony scholar, said in February 2010 that "The Revolution was a paper of debate—presenting both sides of an issue." Gordon was specifically addressing the tendency of the pro-life position to equate Anthony's beliefs and those of her paper; Gordon is saying that Anthony's very public beliefs and the things she published in her paper were two different things.

At the URL that was recently inserted in the Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute article, we see an opinion article written on a blog site, an article attributed to a writer going by the pseudonym "Woman". This article is thus an unreliable source; we don't know who "Woman" is, whether this person is an expert or not. Per WP:RS, nothing at the blog can be used on Wikipedia, unless at a notional Wikipedia article about the blog itself.

If original scans of The Revolution are linked to Wikipedia articles without accompanying blog opinions and amateur analysis then those links should be allowed to stay. The scans themselves are worthy, of value. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I do happen to know one of the administrators of the site personally, and I emailed her about this today. She asked me if I would convey her response to you:

"The site is not a blog, though we use the Blogger website to publish the scans and digitized documents because it is free and stable. The point of the site is to provide a place where people may view the additions as they are made to the archive, and it would be easier to link to the archive site than to edit the Wikipedia page every time there is a new scan uploaded. The list will get very long after two years' worth of weekly-edition issues, and there are more issues that we already have uploaded which are not listed on the Wiki article.

The only post with any commentary from us is the post on the abortion debate, and while I obviously disagree with the administrator's opinion on the matter and I might have reason to quibble about our analysis being dismissed as "amateur" when one wonders how the administrator supposes the scans got there in the first place if we were not able and willing to access scholarly resources, it is much more important that the archive is made available to the Wikipedia audience than it is to make a point about controversial topics. If the only issue is that analysis, that post can be deleted and we will refrain from any further editorial or analytical remark in the future (that is not our objective anyway, as the administrator may note by observing every other entry in the archive). Please ask the administrator if that would be sufficient. If not, please let them know that if he or she will send an email to [edited to protect from spam: femmenet-at-gmail-dot-com], I will email an update whenever a new scan is uploaded so that the Wikipedia article may be edited as he or she sees fit. I would offer to make the edits myself, but that seems like it would be self-serving, and besides, I am not familiar with the Wikipedia conventions well enough to feel comfortable doing it. - H. Chase"

You're probably suspicious of my edits and I don't want to get into a thing where you're having to scrutinize my changes to make sure I'm not violating standards so I'll let you to decide what to do about this. Thanks. --76.216.104.108 (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a very calm and reasoned response from H. Chase aka Femmenet, speaking for The Women's Archives. In the same spirit, I will lay out the factors at play here, the somewhat conflicting direction we get from Wikipedia:

• A blog is a website with regular entries of commentary or other material. Regular entries of PDF scans of The Revolution seem to qualify The Women's Archives as a blog. So did the now-deleted "Infanticide and Prostitution" commentary and analysis at this URL, giving an opinion of the relationship between Stanton and Anthony's beliefs.
• Per the guideline at WP:External links, blogs are allowed as external links in Wikipedia articles if the writer is a recognized authority in the field; for instance, a blog entry by film critic Roger Ebert describing some aspect of film. To be considered a recognized authority, the blog writer must be so notable that he or she meets the criteria for being the subject of a Wikipedia biography article: Wikipedia:Notability (people)
• What can normally be linked includes "neutral and accurate material that is relevant" but which "cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article". The PDFs have too much detail, too much text to be integrated, so having them as external links is good. The scans are neutral and accurate and relevant.
• Links to avoid include search results pages. Technically, the http://womensarchives.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Revolution URL is a search result showing instances of "The Revolution" in the blog. However...
• ...links "should be kept to a minimum". This means my solution of putting individual PDF links into the newspaper article is not exactly recommended. Some balance must be struck between not having a search results page and having a minimum of links.
• Wikipedia acknowledges that an external link drives traffic to a website. However, the wiki keeps a lid on the spamming of URLs by those who have a conflict of interest: Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest

I see that The Women's Archives has deleted the opinion piece that I had problems with, the one in contradiction to Ann Gordon's conclusion reached after her many years of study. I take that as a gesture of good faith. I will keep an eye on the URL with search results and if there's another uploaded scan of The Revolution (probably volume 1, number 12) I will return the external link to the newspaper article. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tango, don't remove

Man... before remove a paragraph of "Tango", read the references. Last reference I've given it's not a round table. It'a a reliable reference, then... don't remove anything.

Look this web page, and you'll see that are written and cited Tangos before 1900: http://www.gardelytango.com/genesis-del-tango-de-1860-a-1880.aspx

And this is a relaible page. DON'T remove. --Edipo yocasta (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Air raids on Japan

I've just added the material I've been developing on the air campaign against Japan to the Air raids on Japan article. Thanks a lot for your assistance with this - it's been very helpful both in fixing up errors and keeping me motivated. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Great work! You have made a lousy stub article into a broad and balanced panorama! Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche

Regarding your comment, I have no intention whatever of contesting any edits made by long-standing contributors to the article. The article is very far from perfect; if you change something in the lead I won't dispute it. The article's fractious history is a result of edits by admins, sockpuppets and nobody in between. BillMasen (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Admins, sockpuppets, and me that is. Unless I too am a sock of HK :p BillMasen (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes jump into articles I know nothing about, learning quickly the main issues to represent the uninvolved neutral viewpoint, but in this case I choose not to jump. I have other plans in mind for my time. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your reluctance, but perhaps you can understand my frustration at being told the article has suffered under my 'control', and then asking in vain for concrete suggestions of how to improve it. Of course if you don't want to get involved I can't force you.

regards, BillMasen (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for ProtectMarriage.com

Thanks for your contribution Victuallers (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rabatment of the rectangle

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

SBA List

As per the source, Stanton referred to abortion as infanticide in The Revolution, 1(5):1, February 5, 1868. I can't revert it because of 1RR. Could you kindly do so? Thanks. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you're repeating an FFL and SBA List position which is off-base and misleading. Stanton referred to both abortion and to infanticide in the article: two different things. Stanton writes about women who deliver children in a hidden boarding house and then kill them, calling this "child murder". She then says about "the murder of children" that it includes killing babies both before and after birth. Here's the copy of The Revolution which Dannenfelser thinks is the one in which Stanton used infanticide to mean abortion. Dannenfelser is wrong, as she often is when bending 19th century issues to fit her own world view.

Scholars Tamara Kay and Nicola Beisel in "Abortion, Race, and Gender in Nineteenth-Century America" write that "Stanton and Anthony linked women's political impotence not only to abortion but also to infanticide." These scholars separate fetus killing from newborn killing. Scholar Morgan Ridler notes about Stanton that "it is important to point out that this writer was discussing infanticide and not directly abortion."

Stanton biographer Lori D. Ginzberg notes that Lucy Stone and Stanton were of one mind in the late 1850s regarding "divorce, marriage, infanticide, and their kindred subjects". Stone and Stanton felt that a woman should have the right to control her own body, to say no to sex even with the husband. However, by 1860 Stanton took a more radical view than Stone about divorce; that it should be allowed at any time.

Stanton biographer Karen O'Connor writes that Stanton was against both infanticide (newborn murder) and unrestrained pregnancy. The modern use of Stanton as an anti-abortion icon ignores her charge that women should have few children, and should be able to choose the time of their pregnancy.

Stanton used fiery language about a lot of things, and her terms are imprecise. She writes about Hester Vaughan, a teenaged mother who killed her own newborn child, that "If that poor child of sorrow is hung, it will be deliberate, downright murder. Her death will be a far more horrible infanticide than was the killing of her child. She is the child of our society and civilization, begotten and born of it, seduced by it, by the judge who pronounced her sentence, by the bar and jury, by the legislature that enacted the law (in which, because a woman, she had no vote or voice), by the church and the pulpit that sanctify the law and the deeds, of all these will her blood, yea, and her virtue too, be required! All these were the joint seducer, and now see if by hanging her, they will also become her murderer."

Ann D. Gordon writes in The Selected Papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, volume 2, that "As early as 1854 ECS pointed to the laws about infanticide, or the killing of a baby after birth, as her principal example of how man legislated unjustly for woman". Stanton uses the power of the word infanticide to mean a few different things: the killing of newborns, the unjust killing of a teenaged mother who committed infanticide herself, and to generalize about the killing of babies by prostitutes to prevent motherhood.

Gordon also notes that Stanton and the other feminists rallied in support of Hester Vaughan even though she may have committed infanticide. They did not condemn the act so much as they condemned the unjust manner of laws controlling women that were enacted by men and enforced by men. In this manner, Stanton again fails to fit neatly into the pro-life bracket.

Stanton biographer Lois W. Banner says that "Stanton condemned both infanticide and abortion; in 1871 she categorized them as disgusting and degrading crimes." Banner asserts that Stanton used each term to mean a different thing: one for newborn murder and the other for unborn murder.

We cannot say in the article that Stanton used the word only one way when she used it a number of ways; such a path would be against the neutrality policy. It would be misrepresenting Stanton. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll concede the point. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have one question though, and you don't have to answer if you don't want to: You referred to abortion as "fetus killing". To kill means "to deprive of life in any manner", according to the dictionary. By calling it "fetus killing", are you admitting that the fetus is a life? NYyankees51 (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The sperm-fertilized egg, the zygote, is a life in my book. Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Santa Maria de Ovila

The article Santa Maria de Ovila you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Santa Maria de Ovila for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

mediation about 1953 coup article

Couple of questions for you if you have time. I want to do a request for mediation about the article.

• You had (what I thought) was a very well thought out and researched request for mediation, but it's been deleted. Do you still have what you wrote saved somewhere so that Someone (I) can use some of the links and so on for another request?
• There is a lot more wrong with the article than just the issues pointed out in the RfC February RfC. Would you advise doing more RfCs until I've covered everything that needs work in the article before making a request for mediation? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  (PS Hi Kurdo! --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

I have a couple of links to previous Arb and Med requests:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

As to what the next step should be, I don't know. I thought mediation would work and I though ArbCom would pick up the case, but I was wrong. Maybe you should ask an arbitrator to estimate whether there is now reason enough for the case to be accepted. If not, it's RfC time again. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Draft-card burning

Hello! Your submission of Draft-card burning at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Savidan 20:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Draft-card burning

Dude, kudos. It never occurred to me that we wouldn't have already had an article on it, it's important! Go you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh heh... Thanks! There are still some cracks here and there that need filling. The wiki is not a completely closed field. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a really good start to an article - great work. There are lots of gaps remaining, particularly for socio-military topics. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"My" War?

I don't accept tha Uruguay tries to has privileges that do not belong to itself. And it is not only with "Tango", it also happened with a lot of argentinian folkloric genres (which are proved its "argentine birth"), which they called "ritmos rioplatenses" ("rioplatense genres"). I am a dancer of Tango and argentine folkloric genres, and I've been studying the "history" of those genres... then I know what I am speaking about.... tou know???

What would you do if you were me??? Imagine that Canada want to steal you the Jazz or.... the swing or twist....or hip-hop...or much better, the "country (USA) music"........ what would you do, if the'd try it without sustainable arguments??? --Edipo yocasta (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

John Lurie details

Hello Binksternet, It's Maria, John Lurie's assistant. I apologize for posting here. We have a few comments and corrections regarding the Wikipedia entry on John Lurie,

In the section on “Early Life” appears the following quote: “He moved to New York City around 1974, then briefly visited London to check out the punk music scene, which did not appeal to him. He was more interested in avant-garde jazz and no wave.[1]

Here you have misread the original source (which you footnote). If you refer back to that you will see that Lurie did not go to London “to check out the punk music scene.”

The following regard the section “Personal Life.”

Contrary to what you imply (“baffling neurological symptoms”), there is no question that John Lurie has advanced Lyme disease. We have medical documents to prove this. Eight different physicians (not a “group of eight”) have said it is late persistent Lyme disease and is a chronic malady. There are presently no doctors who disagree with this diagnosis. We are happy to send documentation so that Wikipedia will state definitively what is apparent to numerous medical practitioners, that Lurie is battling Lyme disease. There should be no ambiguity on this point.

Later, in the same section you write “he was told he had a year to live, and his girlfriend moved out.” We’d prefer that you remove this, as it suggests the girlfriend was a live-in girlfriend, which she wasn’t, and paints her in an excessively harsh light.

In the section’s last sentence, Wikipedia states that Lurie has lived in various locales “since his early 2009 disagreement with Perry.” But characterizing what happened between the two as a “disagreement” is unfair and inaccurate. It is not even clear over what matter the two have “disagreed” since Perry has never settled on exactly what his grievance with Lurie is. Additionally, the threats of violence belie the tame character of that word. We request that you remove that phrase, since it is parenthetical to begin with and obfuscates more than enlightens. John Lurie was not the only person who found the New Yorker article inaccurate and you may want to refer your readers to the New Yorker blog, http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/08/video-john-lurie-the-drawing-show.html, where many of those interviewed had problems with the article.

Finally, a clarification on dates. You say, “Lurie says he has been in ill health since 1994.” In fact, while the Lyme disease was contracted in 1994, Lurie’s neurological symptoms began in 2002, not 1994.

Thank you very much for your time and attention. Best, Maria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.21.51 (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

These recommendations are mostly good, actionable, collaborative suggestions. I will implement most of them.

I have changed the London punk bit, the girlfriend bit, the eight doctors bit, the 1994 bit, and the Perry disagreement, the latter becoming a "rupture", all per sources. However, the 2002 date you suggest here was given as 2000 in the Sutton interview. I must use published sources such as that one. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why have you removed the previous Lurie discussion from your talk page?

Also, "disagreement" is more accurate than "rupture", unless of course Wikipedia now allows individuals, or by extension their assistants, to dictate the content of their own BLP.Lurielurie (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

All I did was reexamine the sources and rewrite the bits in light of the complaints. Rupture is from one of the sources. I did not add anything not contained in the sources.

I took the previous discussion off my page because you kept copying and pasting it to annoy me. You have used up quite a lot of good will in my book.

Wikipedia will always be a bit more sympathetic to living persons who have a biography article than to living persons who wish them harm. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides Lurie's claims, there exists no evidence in any cited material that Lurie has been threatened with violence -as he has not been- it is fair not to use language that implies otherwise. Lurie has used his notoriety to engage in an ongoing campaign to destroy another human being with unsupported accusations. Please direct me to where I might find that it is Wikipedia's policy to extend sympathy or privilege to subjects of BLP's over others. That a person's own quoted statements might be percieved as harmful to them indicts only the quoted. My edits, however, referenced published material and his own verifiable statements.

If you wish to remove a redundant posting of the previous Lurie discussion, that seems reasonable. My re-posting of it was no more meant to annoy you than was your removal of some of our exchanges in the original discussion to annoy me. Please restore at least one of them.

I hope your reserve of goodwill is no less valuable than mine.Lurielurie (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons can be read in full here: WP:BLP. I do not believe your assertions regarding Lurie; they do not match what he said in interviews. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Which assertions?

Thank you for acknowledging your standard of verifiability is "what he said".

What about restoring the original John Lurie discussion. Something to hide?Lurielurie (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

John Lurie

I feel bad about asking you to help there, sorry. The protection has expired, I am still watching it and if disruption continues without attempts to discuss I will ask for some semi protection. Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay, no worries. If I need help I'll give a shout out to the right forum. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see there is some constructive discussion happening above so perhaps a resolution and compromise is on the horizon, regards.Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team Wants You!

Hi Binksternet, it looks like some of the articles you edit fall within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Groucho

It's been called "Legacy" for a long time. Thanks to your aiding and abetting that IP troll, I'm forced to take the Groucho page off my watch list. Good job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not a fan of low-value mentions of the topic listed in trivia or pop culture sections. I guess you and I disagree on that point. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks to you, it's off my watch list now, so someone else will have to defend it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There's only one person in charge of your watchlist and it is not me. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Santa Maria de Ovila

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Henri Coanda defamation - second try

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Henri Coanda defamation - second try and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--Lsorin (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Marvelous. :/

Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Draft-card burning

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gary Rader

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life 1RR

Please avoid 1RR violations on Abortion-related articles, per the community-imposed general sanctions. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm under 1RR for all of my editing until July 13. I am definitely keeping track of this. :P

Thanks for the note, though. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure I reminded both of you. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Bink, the revert on 3/20 may have seemed cavalier, but I was near the end of a marathon session and didn't notice you had reverted the navbox. I didn't anticipate any objections, and it appeared to me I had just overlooked the article. Lionel (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

RFAR Henri Coanda

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Abortifacient

There's a talkpage thread about the removal of "erroneously," in case you'd like to help strengthen that consensus. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need—yet. Eyes are peeled, though. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries

Victuallers (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Malta (World War II)

Completely agree with the block and will not be looking to get it removed, i understand the guidelines. However i would like to know why Dapi has not also been blocked see he has breeched this rule, has no looked to see co-operation, has not followed the guidelines laid down and cited to him, and furthermore labelled myself a liar when the evidence is there for him to clearly see. It seems a little bias that someone annon editing, supported by the guidelines, is blocked while a registed member who is arguing and not looking to co-operate is not.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dapi has contiuned to lie about this, please see the post he has just made on the admin board: "I have been trying to improve air power articles of late and am doing so in genuine on this one. However, an agenda driven IP is disrupting my efforts to improve it. He contributes nothing but mere rhetoric. An administrator needs to step in here."

Can you please explain how by abiding by the guidelines attempting to make a single productive edit to the article that has been repeately reverted results in only one block and not two? I have been accused of lying by the above even though the guidelines show that combatants should be listed by contribution to the battle. Since Malta basically only provided the battlefield, and the British and dominion forces the logistics, supplies, men, material, political backing, and chain of command, this stubbon refusal to co-operate and abide by the guidelines is nothing short of vandalism on his behalf and it seems that this block should not be so onesided. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk • contribs)

I see you've stepped in. You'll note (as you already have) that from my perspective I am not making point-of-view observation. I am simply arguing the country under attack should be listed first. Listing in order of forces contributed is POV, no matter how subtle. The reader will no doubt see in the article who did what and when. Its good that an administrator can distinguish between an established editor making a genuine attempt at improving Wikipedia, as opposed to a straw man IP, just passing through, who seems to cause as much trouble and offence as possible. Many would not. Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Further lies. Am sorry but the guidelines are quite clear and other, practically all other, articles follow them. Why should this one be any different? The island, a colony and territory of the British empire was under attack; by your own admission Malta should not be at the top but the United Kingdom. This is not agenda driven or POV pushing, it is simple fact.

As for your lies and offense in regards to attempting to cause as much trouble as possible, my edits speak for themselves. Most of them are constructive except when standing on peoples toes, mostly yours it would seem.

Should we point out that you have now breeched the 3 revert rule, even after being warned about it. You have attmepted no constructive diaoluge and have ignored the guidelines of how templates should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk • contribs)

I would just like to see a calm discussion on the article's talk page, not accusations flying back and forth on user talk pages and on edit summaries. A record of this discussion should be easily available to future editors. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This guy will not comply with any consensus unless it is in his favour. Now this IP has managed to shut down the entire article so now it cannot be improved upon. I've no need to respond to this nonsense. And his bull shit about the 'guidelines' agreeing with him.....pft

Funny how this person also complains about 'WWII' being used in place of SWW, continues to use American spelling here. Dapi89 (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, per your suggestion i have started a civilised calm discussion on the talkpage. Although i do not see why it has had to come this far since the guidelines clearly note, not to mention other articles, how things should be done and that this minor infranction had been settled by a minor edit hours ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hardware and Software sections (Audio_mastering)

I've have restored those sections cause they are some of the tools used for mastering. I know there is some bogus things there SO if ya don't like some of the stuff listed then go ahead remove what u feel is not made for mastering. But those sections need stay. THX. Jrod2 (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If u wanna, put that on WP:3 but the sections were there for a long time. Jrod2 (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Long time" makes no difference. It could just as well be wrong for a long time as be right. There is no cited reference for that stuff, making it be 100% original research. It's a magnet for lame-ass additions and its a soapbox for article owners. That's my take on it. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yo, WTF? dont get me started aight? Are you ME, no you ain't. Do you know ME's ?? If so then ask them. I ain't got go looking for citable references on mastering equipment cause u don't like the list. Also, you know if it was crackpot info on mastering equipment, then at least *someone* would have removed all that a *long* time ago or said something. You been here on WP too long to know that... if u have some content dispute with another editor, you got to get consensus first, I told you whats your course of action. Peace. Jrod2 (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

References talk, bullshit walks. This is an encyclopedia, not your blog. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You are getting on my nerves with your colorful tone from "lame ass to bullshit walks" descriptions, bro. It's the other way around, this ain't your friggin' private wiki. If you dont like the content, take it to WP:3 and if you get everyone to agree with ya, I'd be the first one to delete all that, aight? Nuff said. Jrod2 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Lame-ass" was not about you—it was directed at all the drive-by editors who add, say, Mackie HR or MR monitor speakers. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You're 100% right. Mackie and mastering to me is total BS too. I never said the list was perfect, did I? I never inserted those Mackie pieces either. Like I said, feel free to get rid of the stuff that's for mixing more than mastering. Be assured, Ima watch that page for spammers. Jrod2 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet, the list should be derived from credible references. If there aren't references to support it, then eventually they should be removed. I don't see any way of creating any definitive list of gear that could possibly be used for mastering audio, so the section might need a preface that positions the gear listed, maybe as "a representation of equipment/software commonly used to master..." synthfiend (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

First you don't edit this page, so you ain't a page editor. Second, you make conclusions based on whatever you think you know about audio. Third, there is gear dedicated to mastering. Try doing searches if you wanna. If you don't find manufacturing companies advertising them as mastering gear, or any studios using these gear, then probably those pieces should be removed. I really don't care about what you or anyone think individually, but what the consensus is . We go by rules. We got procedures to follow. You wanna dispute this?? Be my guest. Take it to WP:3. I be cool with the outcome. To me the only logical argument for NOT having the lists is If we got to put links to other web sites as references to show that's what mastering studios use, then that would be a BIG disaster. We got too many mastering studios and self-appointed mastering engineers as it is to give them more reasons to come to WP and spam. Peace. Jrod2 (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk about self-appointed. Who is deciding what gear goes on the list? There's no published authority to check against. Binksternet (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Talk about self-appointed" I am beginning to get sick and tired of you and your provocative comments, man. You want me to report you?? I told you. Take to WP:3. I am one of the friggin' article editors aight? So, you're gonna give me some respect or you gonna get reported for provoking a fight. I don't know what's come to you and maybe this Wikipedia thing is messing up your social skills, bro. I can't care less for your banners or how ya choose to spend your time online if ya are gonna be making snide remarks. But you ain't gonna delete stuff without due diligence & just because YOU or maybe another guy agrees with ya in this point. I repeat again, I'd be more than happy to delete everything if the *majority* feel having those lists is BAD idea. "There is no public authority to check against". Oh please, now Bernie, Bob and the others don't matter, ha? I tell you what, why don't we delete everybody mentioned there and we call it the day. Let's reduce that page back to a stub. Maybe thats best solution after all. Using those engineers as references have created only reasons for others wannabes to come here to spam. Peace. Jrod2 (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think going with WP:3O is behind us after you shot down a third opinion right here on my talk page, responding to Synthfiend. The next step is Wikipedia:Requests for comment which is easy enough. Binksternet (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Not WP:3 but Wikipedia:Requests for comment(better yet). Jrod2 (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Stetson Wheeler

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Replacing Accurate Data with Inaccurate Data

Please note that in the First Flying Machine article, when I replaced the inaccurate data "200 yards (200m)" with the more accurate "200 yards (180m)" you for some strange reason reversed this. 200 yards = 200x36 = 7200 inches, divided by 39.38 inches in a metre, = 183 meters, which rounds off to 180, not 200 which is way out. You have replaced accurate data with inaccurate data. This is Vandalism if done deliberately. It lowers the standard of Wikipedia whether deliberate or not. (204.112.57.130 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Sorry, must have been sleep in my eye. I thought your change was to 100 rather than 180 meters, and I hit the vandal button. Sorry about that! Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Wyntoon

Cheers, BigDom 16:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

TfD

Hey, I notice that you haven't formally said Delete or Keep at this Template discussion. While anyone who reads the intro can easily discern your position, you might want to add the boldened term anyway. Cheers. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

On a related TfD, an admin removed much of the discussion [5] after closing it. Any idea why? (Yes I could just ask him/her but at the moment I'm a bit weary of bothering sysops). -PrBeacon (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been relisted on another day's page... kind of clunky and counter-intuitive. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 30.

Watchlist it! Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why...

...do you choose now to dig up dirt and bring up the SPI? That was a year and a half ago. I am no longer associated with the SBA List. It's hard for me to WP:AGF in this when you're telling me what I am and am not allowed to do. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

From your keen interest in the topic, and your unwillingness to have the article host unflattering and critical information, I did not ever consider that you might have stopped your association with SBA List. Just by examining your edits on the article, I was certain you were still very much involved. I'm not apologizing, I'm explaining why I called you out on WP:COI terms. Binksternet (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's nothing more than an attempt to destroy my credibility. You have an unwillingness to let the article host anything but unflattering and critical information, but I won't go on a witch hunt looking for your motivations. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Check out the article. Check out its history. There is a ton of positive information in the article, and I haven't protested it, or fought to keep it out. I only fight to retain unflattering but accurate information. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And I find your "accurate" information inaccurate. But again, I won't go on a witch hunt. Sorry for my angry response to your allegations, but it's frustrating to have my credibility questioned over personal disagreements with an editor. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the second time you mentioned "credibility". I'm not targeting your cred at all; I'm only questioning whether you should be allowed to edit disputed information because of your (past) association with SBA List. I have nothing against your credibility. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's impossible for me to believe that you're just following the rules when you and I have been in disputes on and off for 8 or 9 months now. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

...and I expect we will continue to work at cross purposes regarding abortion topics. I do not wish you harm, and I do not intend to undermine your work. I just see that you have been less than open regarding your connection to SBA List, and I think you may have to leave disputed material in place at that article, following COI guidelines. Other abortion topic articles where you and I have differences of opinion are ones I fully expect to see you continue your work. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:COI - "Using COI allegations...to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban," I will not stop editing the SBA List article. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you delete disputed text at that article I will take it to WP:COIN. I am not trying to gain the upper hand, I am only trying to see that the COI guideline is followed. Even if you are told at COIN to keep to undisputed material at SBA List, I fully expect you to continue with your pro-life political promotions elsewhere, trying to change the world by showing pro-life politics in a good light on Wikipedia. I have no expectation that keeping you to COI on SBA List will stop you on any other abortion-related articles. You have been associated with a pro-life political organization in the past (at least) and I don't expect your pro-life efforts to stop. Me? I just want to tell the whole story to the reader, including the critical parts. I have no political agenda. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"If you delete disputed text at that article I will take it to WP:COIN" definitely disproves that you are doing this to gain the upper hand. *facepalm* NYyankees51 (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What part of deleting disputed text is allowed at WP:COI, by editors who have a proven interest and affiliation in the topic? The COI noticeboard is exactly the place one should take this sort of thing. I don't need to "gain the upper hand" as my arguments for including unflattering information are quite sufficient; you'll see that sort of thing is 100% supported at WP:NPOV. When's the last time you talked to a person from SBA List? Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not an issue of POV, it's an issue of redundancy between articles. Your point would make sense if I was trying to remove critical information from both the SBA List article and the abortion dispute article. I'm not. As for COI, I've told you that the affiliation ended a year and a half ago, and I'm not going to answer your attempts to destroy my credibility. In making these allegations, you have a conflict of interest of your own - you're using policy to try to destroy someone you are engaged in a content dispute with. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Linni Meister

Hi could you add the DYK stats for Linni Meisters DYK on 13.300 views. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I put the article up, but there may be more hits registered tomorrow for today's views. The number of hits may go up. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I will keep you informed and we can add the other views to the count. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

1.700 more views for the second day to be added.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Done! :) Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks:) Maybe you could check out an earlier Afd of mine on Emilia Carr. it recieved 8.900 veiws on first day but then another 1.000 views for day two. Those 1.000 views has not been added. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh heh... You're on your own, now. I bet you can make the necessary changes. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

).. yeah I will try.--BabbaQ (talk) 16

10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tim Ryan (engineer)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)