User talk:Binksternet/Archive16

Cue Cat suggestions

Hello Binksternet I see you have made comments and changes to the cue cat record. I have put up for review suggestions for relevant changes to the cue cat record. Would you please join in with the rest of us on the suggested changes? Thank you (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Thank each of you, wiki editors and such, for giving me such great pointers and also for the direct emails of encouragement in learning this process. Shabbat Shalom - and since it's Friday I plan to make my additions and updates to the record on Monday. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Edit To Classical Music

Hi there. Please help me understand why you had removed my edit for vandalism and copyrighted material.

I posted no copyrighted material, just a link. I thought it was a shame that the only external link was available to EU members.

All the same, just trying to help. Cheers!

--Winkinblinkinnod (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the site and it appeared to me to use copyrighted recordings. Wikipedia cannot link readers to websites that violate copyright laws.

Other than that, I did not see any specific encyclopedic information about classical music. The link only listed the top 100 classical songs by some unstated algorithm of how much the songs were used in popular media such as TV and movies. It's a list but it is not educational. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the supportive comment at my talk. I didn't want to spend my Saturday editing Wikipedia, anyway! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A day and a half of sanity to prepare once again for Wikipedia. ^_^

Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

grand lake theater edit

Hello Binksternet,

I've only done a few Wikipedia edits. I just saw you remove most of the addition I did for the Oakland Grand Lake theater Politics section.

There is a reason for putting down the full transcript from Rachel Maddow's brief coverage which you deleted.

The Oakland Grand Lake Theater has not been given preferential treatment by the City of Oakland as an important landmark. If anything Oakland Mayor Quan has deliberately introduced anti-small business measures to starve small businesses Oakland and has particularly ignored the owner of the Grand Lake Theater when she was just a councilmember.

The full transcript of Rachel's comments I think is really important for anyone who is looking at the wiki entry for the GrandLake theater because it will give readers a really good idea of just why the Oakland grand lake theater is such a gem.

Frankly I know that Allen Michaan would really appreciate having the full transcript included in the wiki entry, I just spoke with him tonight.

Is there some reason why you took out the text? I currently live in SF and I grew up about a mile away from the Grand Lake theater and as such really appreciate Allen's guts to post the messages on his marquee.

I can give you my cell ph if that helps you.

Best regards,

Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katt123 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

oops--this is the first Talk post I've ever done, so didn't realize I had to sign off with the four tildas. Katt123 (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

First, you would want to know that I love the Grand Lake—I am a loyal theater customer as well as a neighbor. When I look out of my living room window I see the big rooftop sign backwards spelling DNARG. Second you might want to know I am just trying to keep the article neutral and fact-based rather than promotional. Wikipedia is not here to help local organizations gain notice, it is here to document such notice as gained by other means. Michaan has options open to him, avenues of promotion, but Wikipedia cannot be one of them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not more than that. Binksternet (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

A belated thank you for taking the time to fully explain the review process to me. I first saw Warren on the Now PBS program several years ago and was impressed with her intelligence and clear thinking. You really did a great job on her article.

I lived in CA for several years - Palo Colorado Canyon just up from Garapata Beach, just north of the Rainbow Bridge. I spent some time at Esalen as well. It is a beautiful place and I have very fond memories of that area.

Also, it is good to see you at the OWS article - it needs good editors like you and I hope you continue to spend a little time there. Gandydancer (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's some of the best looking area of California. Did you see sea otters? I love Big Sur but I get there too infrequently. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I sure did. I also saw sea sailors, and luminescent sand fleas. Each step in the wet sand brought out hundreds of sparkles - it was one of the most beautiful experiences that one could have... I spent a lot of time near the ocean and used to work the 3 - 11 shift so that I drove home, down the coast, each night. On moonlit nights...well, you can just imagine... I used to drive the old coast road that takes off above Rainbow Bridge...beautiful rolling hills of California poppies and lupine... I lived right in the redwood forest in a dome with windows all around. I was there for the...was it '89?...quake. The dome was on stilts and it used to sway back and forth all night as the many aftershocks rolled through... In some ways I regret leaving, but my two girls were starting their families and I missed them. Gandydancer (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet can you help me?

Binksternet can you help?

I posted to Cue cat as I said I would. Once again Bbb23 undid my work as he has done to all other. But in the process of dismantleing my work he left out the Codie Ward for cue cat. Would you look over my links for the award and consider improving the file of cue cat on my behalf for the codie award? Seems, me being new and female is hurting me. Can you help improve the cue cat file? I have left the links and info in the discussion page. Thanks ProofPlus Professional Researcher 16:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Being insistently promotional is hurting you, not being female. I have not yet decided to jump into the article which frankly looks like a quagmire to me. I have no previous experience in the topic, only a strong notion of what a good encyclopedia article looks like. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Random request

I've run into your name a few places and I have a random request due to your GA experience. I have listed death panel as my first GAN. I'm slightly concerned it may be rejected due to a lack of a formal copy-edit. (I've tried my best to copy-edit and compress the physician/academics/politicians reaction and analysis, as the peer review suggested.) Might you take a quick look and give a bit of feedback on the article in case there are some potentially deal-breaking changes I can make before it is reviewed? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look when I get time. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts: The very first sentence makes no sense. Not a promising start! The rest of the article is not neutral in tone, that is, too much promotion for HR 3200. The word "reform" is used to beat the reader over the head, even though it refers to a proposed bill. There are three dead URLs. The article is too repetitious about the concept of death panels being false. Once established, the point does not have to be continually repeated. I don't like the two horizontal galleries of influential parties. If they are not major actors such as Palin and Gingrich then their presence is undue weight. Why is there a wikilink to job-killing? Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Buster Keaton

Thanks for going in and rectifying the addition of "stuntman" to Keaton's résumé. Actually I think he did stunts on occasion, but I have no citation for that at present. Maybe it is in one of his bios or an interview, but I'm certain he did work as a stuntman now and again. He is simply not notable for it. Good catch. Djathinkimacowboy 20:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm curious about his stunt work for others. ^_^

Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks as though I abandoned you... all I can do is make mention of stuff I have known since childhood. All I know is Arbuckle and Schenck naturally found him to be the best stuntman available. He was generally kept from wasting his time that way, but he'd do it if he liked the project.

This reminds me of Ebert, just writing last Friday. He asked stars why they did cruddy films, when they were stars and it was embarrassing. They said because they needed the money for something or other, and because no one would ever really 'see' them in the lousy films anyway....

Sorry, I just never had enough time to read enough about Buster, but I got to see him when I was a kid with my parents and that has always been more than enough for me! Djathinkimacowboy 10:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

The information i added from this site http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-03/politics/30353835_1_tea-party-movement-unfavorable-view-positive-views is not copyrighted. I will not allow you to do damage control to the occupy movement, I am re-adding the information because it IS NOT copyrighted, do not revert it again.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to also ask that you quit lying. The Business Insider article was not copyrighted. There were two sources for that information not one, so at the very most it merited deleting one of the references and not the entire edit. You have been disruptive and I ask that you get consensus before further editing the Occupy pages.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You have reverted my edit a second time under false pretenses, this time I added the information under a separate source and not even the one you reverted it for. If you do this again I will ask an admin to block you from editing the article, you have been warned.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am reverting your copyvio edits per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. I am not limited in the number of removals of copyrighted text under that rule. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

How is that polling information copyrighted?--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I just saw it hidden at the very bottom, apologies. But I find it odd that you were so distraught by that information that you took the time and effort to look through the entire page to find that little thing that said copyright (I'm still not sure if it was specifically copyrighting that information).--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright notices generally appear at the bottom of webpages. Next time, look there before you accuse other editors of lying. MastCell ^Talk 05:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla query

While I refrain from editing at Nikola Tesla, I've noted a lot of activity from this Slushy user. Is Slushy going to be a problem? I think you ought to be more careful who gets in to work on the article. There were lots of facts and citations I wanted to correct, but I declined due to personal differences with a separate editor. Anyway, just a question - and maybe a heads up too.

Did you see my reply about Buster Keaton? Please drop a line at my talk page, will ya? Djathinkimacowboy 10:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

AND:

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For work on Nikola Tesla, Buster Keaton and other valiant deeds. Djathinkimacowboy 10:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well deserved and my pleasure to do so. They speak of overuse of the stars; no one addresses underuse! Well here I stand! Djathinkimacowboy 01:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street GA

In regard to your comments on my talk page, "You should never have started the review". I didn't start the GA review, it was started by Amadscientist, I was simply the first person to make any observations. I would also like to point out that only 1 of my edits to the article has not been reverted so I am not the "nominator" nor have I "made significant contributions to it prior to the review".--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You are so deeply involved with the article that you have been blocked for edit warring. 'Nuff said. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Enough with Nikola Tesla?

I've noticed some minor back-and-forth at the article. Should it not be protected for the time being? It is in good shape and I see no reason why certain editors are allowed into it only to make silly changes. I myself do not venture into the article at all. Djathinkimacowboy 06:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Latin music

There's a new editor making what I think are poor changes to various Latin music articles such as Afro-Cuban jazz which I know you have worked on. Care to check in and see what can be done? No need to reply here... Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Yes. I see the user has been temporarily blocked. I am going to be away in France for a week, running in the Nice-Cannes Marathon. I'll take a look at that user when I get back to see if they have improved. Thanks for letting me know. And thanks for dealing with the situation. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, have fun in France... as they say on stage, break a leg! Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Dear Binksternet Thank so much for the barnstar! Much appreciated, and it is wonderful to see that someone else here sees that there is something very disturbing about that page. Unfortunately, there is still much work to be done with that page, especially the passage that seems to imply that all Soviet Jews were Communists, which is why they did not deserve "lenient" treatment, which is deeply troubling. I'm going to attach a neurality tag on that article until that matter is sorted out. But in the meantime, thank so much and please have a wonderful day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Nothing worth doing is ever easy... ^_^

Binksternet (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all the good work on the Manstein article. I've been sick for the last week or so, so please excuse my inactivity as of late. Without mentioning any names, there are some users that depress one because one tries to make an article reflect recent historical work by bringing in proper sources, and then one has to engage in a knock-down battle. This is the kind of thing that makes one want to keep up on Wikipedia. Yes, some of the material that I'll brought in was unflattening, but that is not my fault that Manstein went and did things like massacre Jews. If Manstein wanted to have a better reputation, then he should have refrained from doing that sort of thing. It is really depressing that somebody in this day and age wants to keep alive the mythological reputation that Manstein created for himself in the 1950s, something that historians should not have believed even at the time, and no serious historian believes today. But then there are users like you, who are intelligent, courteous and fair, and gives one hope that in a format like Wikipedia, there are good people still out there. Thanks for all your kind words, and keep up the good work! --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Buster Keaton's pic

THANKS! I love that photo and have never seen it before, frankly. I have a BK file where I keep my favorite images. Djathinkimacowboy 19:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just a perfect shot, 100% Keaton. :D

Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Robin Olds

Binkster, I made the original edit directly from the book in question (The 479th Fighter Group in World War II: in Action over Europe with the P-38 and P-51), which is of course why it was in block quotes. Your reversion was in order since the text was/is accurate.--Reedmalloy (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good to know. Google books was not giving me the slightest hint of what was inside the book. Binksternet (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your participation in the Dispute Resolution forum-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! Glug, glug... :D

Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla help

If you will not be too alarmed, I'd like to enquire whether I might be able to count on you for mediation. There is an editor - I'm sure you know DIREKTOR - causing problems at the talk page. It is the section dealing with Tesla's photo. I have at the moment asked another editor to help, but I can never be sure whether that editor will reply to me or not. I'd be grateful for a fresh set of eyes on this and a discreet assistance! Djathinkimacowboy 19:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a silly argument. I'll chime in but mostly I think the situation will best be fixed by backing away. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and I have agreed to your post at Tesla and have apologised - which I hope you'll accept here also. What I regret most of course is that so much of what I wrote was taken to be hostile and unnecessary. And I agree that it was.... Djathinkimacowboy 20:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion

You told me not to get lost in this or that primary source. And I agree, but except perhaps yourself no one was lost. We were discussing inclusion of both studies. DMSBel (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I considered the various aspects of the discussion and I thought you were driving it in a toxic direction which is why I said what I did. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Phase equalization

In most non-audio applications the actual waveform of the transmitted signal must be preserved, not just its frequency content. Thus these equalizing filters must also cancel out any phase shifts (unequal delay) between different frequency components.

You deleted the above from equalization stating that it was "unlikely". The article already explains why this is necessary in analogue television. It is also important in digital communications (which probably justifies "most" but "many" might be better). In fact dispersion was the limiting factor of early submarine telegraph cables. SpinningSpark 22:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what you're seeing in the article body. The bit about dispersion is not very clear, if that's supposed to explain the concept.

Sounds like you are describing a system that pre-equalizes a signal prior to the signal traveling through an all-pass sort of medium in which the phases are smeared. If so, it's not just television: there are audio tools for this same purpose because air does not affect all sound waves equally. Air attenuates high frequency sound waves more than low and it smears the phase. Some loudspeaker management tools for large concerts have a way to counteract this condition. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Dispersion is referred to in the body at Equalization#Television lines. I was not particularly referring to pre-equalization. Whether it is pre or post equalization is irrelevant to this discussion (obviously it has to be pre for a loudpeaker system). Phase distortion is a cause of intersymbol interference in digital communications.

Your comment Air attenuates high frequency sound waves more than low and it smears the phase is a little confused. The differential attenuation of frequencies is not dispersion, it is rather, the differential delay of frequencies. Dispersion of sound in air is a relatively minor effect (see speed of sound) and does not have a hugely detrimental result. In digital communications, on the other hand, it has the potential to completely destroy reception. SpinningSpark 23:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A ref explaining the need for digital phase eq]. SpinningSpark 07:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you now prepared to revisit your deletion in light of this? SpinningSpark 19:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What are all the applications which use such equalization? The non-artistic kind which must be employed for the application to work. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I am not an encyclopedia I couldn't give you a list of all of them. The one I am most familiar with is analogue television, it is vital to phase equalise cables carrying analogue pictures. As I said above, phase equalisation is widely used in digital modems which would not be able to operate at such high data rates without it because of intersymbol distortion. That in itself must cover a huge range of applications. Radar systems use it to preserve the radar pulse shape. I have a reference which suggests the earliest equaliser may have been a phase equaliser used on a sonar system, but I wouldn't quote that in the article - while the source is Sidney Darlington he is a little vague about it. SpinningSpark 23:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope this wasn't intentional

Did you really make a second revert 24 hours and 1 minute after the first? [1] [2] NYyankees51 (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question? ^_^

Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violation of the 1RR restriction at Maafa 21. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Swarm ^X 01:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

See my comments at WP:AN3 for a detailed explanation for the block. Swarm ^X 01:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation you gave at AN3. My above response to NYyankees51 was something you called a snide admission that I was gaming the system. It was snide, yes, but no admission. I looked at the two links he provided and I saw there was absolutely a minute more than 24 hours, so I could only conclude that there was no answer NYyankees51 was looking for from me which he did not already know. I have a friction-filled history with NYY so I did not provide him with more details such as what I was intending or thinking. In that respect it was a snide answer. I'm sorry my snide answer formed a part of your response to the situation. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't take that comment as an "admission" (though you acknowledged the situation); the 1RR vio is obvious enough by itself. Don't think that the block was in any way influenced by a comment that I may have misunderstood. Swarm ^X 01:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Swarm, the 24:01 difference was simple chance. I have made more than 68,000 edits on Wikipedia so naturally two article reversions might be 24:01 apart. I happened to be sitting down at the computer at about the same time on two successive nights, looking at the Maafa 21 article to see what was useful and what needed changing. As always, I had multiple browser windows open, all relating to articles I have on my watchlist, ones that had changed recently. One was the Maafa 21 article contribution history. Another was the article talk page. I added the abortion sanctions 1RR template to the talk page, hit 'save page' at 04:27, and then I closed that browser window, revealing the revision history of Maafa 21 which I examined for past editors, to see if there had been any useful prior content contributions that had been subsequently deleted, or whether there were earlier contributors worth talking to. I noticed that User:Lifedynamics was already warned and blocked for username violations, being the same name as the film production company. The next edit I made was to click on User:Maafa21 and give him a similar warning about username policy. The next handful of open browser windows that I dealt with took about 45 minutes of my time but I was getting sleepier, and after removing a possibly misleading inflation number from the Mark Twain biography I was about to shut the computer off for the night. Before doing so I remembered the Maafa 21 article, opened it up and examined it for anything worth keeping, made the now fateful revert, and went to bed. There was no sense of gaming the system on my end, no drumming of fingers and watching the clock to make sure I was not breaking 1RR. There was only, oh, hey, I forgot to actually edit the article after sifting through its page history.

When NYyankees51 showed me the diffs on my talk page it was the first time I saw the 24:01 time span. I thought, oh, it looks like I got lucky and missed 1RR by a minute. I thought that, because of the minute leeway, I would not have to take any remediating action—would not have to defend myself. If I had felt guilty of gaming at that point I would have done something about it. Let me reiterate that I held no intention of gaming the system. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, I was on the edit warring noticeboard filing a report when I figured it must have been a mistake (I've violated 1RR because I didn't check the history and hated getting blocked for it) since I couldn't believe that you would go down to the minute. I was giving you an opportunity to self-revert and remedy the situation. Instead, you defiantly acknowledged that the 1 minute was intentional. I was trying to assuage our "friction-filled history" by giving you a chance instead of going straight to AN/EW, and you responded in this manner. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a lovely story for the children, but the adults among us will notice that in the very same minute I was examining and responding to the two diffs you offered above, you were making further changes to the Maafa 21 article such that any reversion by myself would be impossible. There was already no opportunity for self-revert after changes by Uncle Dick and by Roscelese; all before your changes. Instead of offering me a chance of self reversion you were hammering one more nail into the coffin.

I did not "defiantly" acknowledge any intentional gaming; instead, I snidely responded with another rhetorical question, the irony of my own rhetorical-to-rhetorical response noted by the following emoticon: ^_^ . I guess that wordless emoticon has now served as seed for a wide variety of responses. For me, though, it was only expressing the irony of responding to a rhetorical question with another rhetorical question. Whatever defiant acknowldedgement you thought you observed was absent on my end of things. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I see now and fully understand that I have been unhelpful in my work on the Maafa 21 article, specifically in making content reversions on November 16, 17 and 19; all without support from article talk page consensus. In fact there is no consensus at this point on the talk page. I promise to refrain from further reversions in the article until and unless a clear consensus develops on the talk page or on noticeboards. With this promise of mine, I will not be able to game the system (though that was never my intent) nor will I be able to perform the 1RR-style edits that other editors will continue to enjoy. I promise to work toward consensus as necessary on the talk page or elsewhere. With this promise of mine, the block is no longer necessary to protect Wikipedia from my hand. Per blocking policy, the block is a preventative measure, not a punitive one, and I have shown the worthiness of my word in the past when I promised a self-imposed 1RR limitation for six months from January to July 2011. That voluntary 1RR promise was kept to the letter, and so will this promise of 0RR at Maafa 21 until consensus is clear. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Your offer of 0RR at Maafa 21 is accepted in good faith, please do not breach it. SpinningSpark 21:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I will not breach 0RR at Maafa 21 unless and until consensus is clearly established. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent reverts

File:The children - victims of adult vices(war).jpg

One of the images under discussion: War

Why do you revert all my recent additions of Chemiakin's sculptures? I agree that in some cases they might not really belong to the articles, like in the case of Domestic violence, but in other cases your edit summaries are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GreyHood ^Talk 17:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I left a few of them as they seemed appropriate to poverty and alcoholism. The others are too conceptual and opaque—they do not help the reader at all. I removed the images because they seemed to serve your purposes instead of the reader. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a matter of personal taste. I can't see how the images are more appropriate to poverty and alcoholism, but are less appropriate in other cases. I agree with some of your reasoning, but in some cases I've reverted the reverts, especially when there is a clear lack of images. If you have better stuff illustrating the topic, insert it please, but until then it makes more sense to use whatever relevant images we have. GreyHood ^Talk 17:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be operating under the impression that a poor image is better than no image. I disagree. At Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content, the guideline says that images should "increase readers' understanding of the subject matter." I don't think most of the sculpture images do that. Instead, they serve to derail topic comprehension, taking the reader away from the article to try and figure out what is being depicted in the unclear photograph, to try and figure out what kind of thinking went into the sculpture. It is true that intangible concepts such as pseudoscience can be illustrated with images, but in many cases the photos you are adding do not help. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Choosing images provides more advice about when to add images and what images should be selected. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of these sculptures contain recognizable attributes of the subjects they depict, and may be viewed as an attempt to illustrate the abstract things in material, personified form. Surely such things are increasing topic comprehension by artistically highlighting certain traits of the topic. For example, the sculpture of war is definitely better illustration of war than a number of battle images in the article with hardly discernible details. Also, consider the idea that many such articles have "X in arts" section, where such images definitely belong. This makes them belonging to such articles in principle. GreyHood ^Talk 18:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The war image is particularly unhelpful as it shows some sort of gas-masked angel of death offering what may be a bomb disguised as a plaything. What part of war does this pertain to? No part! It is a conceptual work of art, not a means to help the reader understand the topic of war. Battle images are far better than that.

If an image has "recognizable attributes of the subjects they depict" then that is the bare minimum consideration for inclusion. More to the point is whether the image serves the reader; whether it aids in comprehension. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I placed the image into Youth bulge theory, since the image is related to youth. But it could also belong to the Efforts to stop wars as anti-war piece of art, and to the Morality of wars, being a good illustration of why war is immoral. The image illustrates both past wars (armor) and present ones (gas mask) and alludes to a well-known sad story when Afghani children took bombs for toys (warning: disturbing image). GreyHood ^Talk 19:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Egad, that's all original research and conjecture. We do not know what the artist was thinking, and the image still does nothing for the war article, no matter what section you think it should go in. That article already has too many images; the addition of an opaque, conceptual one is totally unnecessary. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

MILHIST Military Aviation Questionaire

Hi Binksternet! As your MILHIST Military Avation Task Force coordinator, I'd like to conduct a short questionaire to give me an idea of what you would the task force to achieve and the capabilities of yours that might contribute positively to the task force. The four questions of this questionaire are:

1. What are your strengths on Wikipedia?
2. Which four military aviation articles would you like to see be promoted to at least GA?
3. What detailed resources (books, journals, etc) about military aviation do you have access to? Please provide the publications' authors, titles and ISSNs/ISBNs.
4. Which three military aviation articles are you wiling to provide assistance? This can be expansion, copyediting, reference formatting, etc.

Please reply by copying and pasting the following at User talk:Sp33dyphil#MILHIST Military Aviation questionnaire and filling it out.

; ~~~
#My strengths
#Articles I'd like to see the task force improve
#:
#:
#:
#:
#Sources which I have
#:
#:
#Articles I'm willing to provide assistance
#:

Thank you for your assistance. Regards --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there

Hope you had a nice thanksgiving. I keep planning to return to the 1953 article but the Occupy protest and other domestic issues (Income inequality in the United States, Koch Industries,Grover Norquist, Hydraulic fracturing) keep distracting me. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I aim to read the recent book by Abbas Milani to see if it sheds any light on the matter. If it does I will come back to the article with the book in hand. Milani is a highly respected Stanford scholar so his version of events will stick. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at Talk:Pale Blue Dot.
Message added 05:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suraj T 05:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: November 2011

August 2018

PROJECT NEWS

WikiProject Conservatism faces the ultimate test

By Lionelt

On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the author's talk page.

Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal.

In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.

October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.

Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

---

DISCUSSION REPORT

Timeline of conservatism is moved

By Lionelt

Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is Timeline of modern American conservatism.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

Recent Steinway edit

I see that the Steinway article continues to be bizzarely dynamic and controversial. You recently removed a clause that denoted the company's practice of importing some of their product line from overseas suppliers. Because of the beginning of the sentence focusing on the somewhat unique hand assembly process used on American and German Steinways, this did change the meaning of the sentence and make it less complete as a descriptor of the company and its business. I do not see why the national origin of those non hand-made imports is at all relevant (and in this day, is undoubtedly prone to change), but would it not be more accurate to not imply by the current form of this passage that Steinway sells only hand-made pianos (which is how I read the net of your edit)?--Rwberndt (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You are suggesting to work the material into the lead section somewhat more prominently than it is now but less awkwardly than the IP editor's method? I can see the value of your argument. If you don't do it yourself, I will in a few days. Binksternet (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugg Boot NPOV

Thanks for posting on the NPOV page in support of my proposals. I appreciate that you took each one at a time.--Factchk (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

All in a day's work. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

answered you in the uggs discussion

just thought I would point that out due to the clutter in the section. It's really hard to read for *me*, and I was in most of it. Elinruby (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

Please note that you violated 1RR at the article. Kindly self-revert.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the notice. I am a novice in that frightfully friction filled topic. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

you're welcome. also, please note the discussion on the talk page regarding said topic.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Falsetto article corrections

Hi Binksternet

I am a professional singer based in England. I was surprised at how many factual errors were in the Falsetto article.

You were referring to literature which is very old, and has since been found to be inaccurate. I have taught singing for my whole life, and am in touch with very important authorities on matters of the voice (for example Mr Mansel V Griffiths, FRCS http://www.expertsearch.co.uk/cgi-bin/find_expert?2275, founder of the first voice clinic in the UK).

I would like to make alterations to the Falsetto page as it is currently very misleading. Unfortunately there are not many references as the internet (and also many books) are full of misleading misinformation (which people like Mr Griffiths have no time to correct). For example the animation refers to the phonation of the vocal chords (not falsetto at all). Another problem is Falsetto has nothing to do with vocal chords, instead the sound is created by the vibration of false folds above the vocal chords. The article also mixes up the history of castrato singing with falsetto. Obviously the two are very different (in addition to being very different from the technique of counter tenors)!

I’m not sure how invested you are in this article – I would appreciate you at least considering my amendments, and allow me to replace or remove any inaccurate information. Although some of the information is referenced, the references themselves are outdated and the ideas have been disproved and replaced.

Regards

Pavel M. Josifek pavelmjosifek.com 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)~ Carlmarche (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not heavily invested in the article, but for what it's worth, Wikipedia goes by published sources, not by personal observations. The guideline at WP:No original research describes how Wikipedia cannot be the first place that an idea is published. If there are no published and reliable sources correctly describing falsetto physiology, the article cannot tell the reader what your conclusions are.

Perhaps we can simply settle for deleting the old, inaccurate sources from the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

proposed changes in 1953 Iran coup article

Since there was little discussion and no resolution to my proposal to add a short subsection titled ’Iranian coup supporters’ to the 1953 Iranian coup article, I'm doing a Request for Comment on the issue as well as polling editors active on the 1953 Iranian coup article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at it in a day or so. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Kurt Chew-Een Lee

Hello! Your submission of Kurt Chew-Een Lee 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! --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

DYK for On The Issues (magazine)

Orlady (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC) 08:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Maunsel White / Elliott Cresson Medal Recipients

Dear Binksternet, On the Maunsel White article I removed the category tag that listed White as a recipient of the Elliott Cresson Medal because that was actually a different (but related) Maunsel White.

The following PDF article from Louisiana State University mentions the link between the original Maunsel White (the one who has an article on Wikipedia) and his grandson, Maunsel White III (the one who won the Cresson medal, and who no doubt deserves a Wikipedia article): http://www.bus.lsu.edu/bedeian/articles/MaunsellWhite-NO1988.pdf

However, I cannot figure out how to prevent the reference to Maunsel White on the page listing Elliott Cresson Medal recipients from automatically linking to the article for the wrong Maunsel White. Do you know how to fix this? See the reference to Maunsel White here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Cresson_Medal

Sincerely, --Skb8721 (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed the problem by making a wikilink to Maunsel White III, making the name a redlink, one waiting for somebody to write the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! --Skb8721 (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Clean Wehrmacht myth-article needed

lease look here, feel free to copy and expand to create an article on this if you want:[3] Comments welcomed. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

LRAD

Another editor removed the modified LRAD sentence, pointing out (quite correctly) that it's out of place in a section about complaints by local residents. I restored it, but put it in the "Police Reponse" section, where it will not imply a SYNTHy "response" to the resident complaints about noise. I also clarified the sources -- if you read carefully, it appears that no one, even the protesters who tweeted, claimed that the police used the LRAD as anything other than super-loud megaphones to broadcast police instructions to protesters. (The closest anyone came was one protester claiming that the devices are "usually used in combat" and pointing out that they're capable of emitting loud tones to drive people away. No one actually says the NYPD did that.) Have a look. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Help please

Hi there, I've replaced a terrible Bixby Creek Bridge photo but I don't know how to remove the wording at the top. Could you take a look at it? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Allen Funt used to have a place there. We knew the caretakers and I have a funny story I'll tell when I have time. :-) Gandydancer (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Kurt Chew-Een Lee

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:SaipanMass.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:SaipanMass.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Requesting advice/assistance

I'm still rather green at the whole wikipedia thing. I'm not sure how to link specific edits, but if you look at my talk page, you will see that my recent edit on Steinway seems to have attracted the attention of our IP friend who supports other pianos in a rather aggressive and most unwelcome manner. Can you help me to understand where I go when another editor has edited my user page in a slanderous manner, asserting that I work for Steinway, when in fact I work for an automaker and have played Yamaha euphoniums (flunked class piano twice !!) since 1976 and have no such affiliation? It amazes and disturbs me that the Steinway article is so dynamic. With Samick, a company with a past history of procuring old, respected names and assigning them to new sources possibly in the process of acquiring what has been a generally respected piano maker, I would expect this in the near future, but now? Anyway, I tried to make light of it and dont feel a simple deletion in the logs speaks well to my side (the truth), but I really feel that what this user did on my user talk page was unacceptable, but do not know the wikiprotocol to follow to object. Can you enlighten me?--Rwberndt (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The answer is that I don't know. The real problem is how to shut down the IP editor who appears unable to edit the page without a little twist of the negative knife. The article can be semi-protected but your talk page and mine will continue to be available to this guy's accusations. (Check my talk page history for the IP comment I deleted.) Blocking the IP would solve all of the problems, but I don't see exactly what leverage to use on him, what specific guidelines he's breached beyond WP:NPOV at the article and fairly mild WP:NPA at our talk pages. If the personal attackes were more comprehensible they would be actionable. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tried on the talk page, but this individual either does not understand, or is uninterested in NPOV - and appears to be addicted to pianobuyer.com, which I refuse to accept as the one and only authority. I'm commenting to him on the article talk again - but this is rising to the "disruptive" level. Thoughts?--Rwberndt (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

We will have to escalate our responses. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Its sad that people will just persist in being disruptive until they are blocked instead of working together to make a better encyclopedia. Thanks for your efforts on this!--Rwberndt (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mt. Shasta Brewing Company

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the appreciation. :) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. You earned it!! Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A favour to ask. I am trying to improve Ahalya to FA status and have started a PR Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ahalya/archive1. If you have time, please give your comments to improve the article to FA status on the PR or the talk. The article needs more non-Hindu, non-Indian eyes, who have never heard of Ahalya. Thanks a lot. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a lot on my plate but I may go over there and look at the article. It is true that I qualify as non-Hindu and non-Indian, and that I have "never heard of Ahalya" in the sense that, if I have heard of her, I don't remember. My knowledge of Hindu mythology is limited and somewhat cartoonish, comparable to Sita Sings the Blues. ^_^

Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.

Redtigerxyz ^Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

good luck

I saw your recent and 100% correct on the Moore article. I made that same type of edit a few months back and his minions shredded it. Hope it stays in, but his followers don't like anything remotely resembling verifiable facts in that article. It's probably the only BLP that uses the subject as a source, too.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh well. I was surprised that two of my source books were not in the article yet, one something of a puff piece and the other sharply critical, as epitomized by the "Big Fat Stupid White Man" title. You know, the text about Moore's NRA membership is somewhat less appropriate in his biography article and quite a bit more appropriate in the Bowling for Columbine article. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For diplomacy and modesty! Gandydancer (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Why, thank you! :D

Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

92.x

Hi Binksternet - this 92.x guy is becoming a real problem - given his track record, I'm assuming every edit he makes is dubious and needs to be reverted. You think it's time to ask for an IP range block? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That IP is actually community banned editor HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), articles relating to the Suez Crisis are a particular target of his. As he's banned, he can (and should) be reverted on sight without regard to 3RR. As you've already noticed he hops IPs all the time, so it's generally best to ask for pages semi-protecting to deal with his disruption. Playing whack-a-mole with dynamic IP editors can be handled using SPI, but page protection is much easier for persistent and committed sockmasters. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - useful to know. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay! "Forewarned, forearmed". Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The notional rangeblock would have to cover at least 92.7.0.0 to 92.7.31.255, if not wider. (This edit from 92.7.241.136 might have been our guy Harvey.) That kind of rangeblock would inconvenience as many as 8,000 IP addresses. It's perhaps better to keep reinstating protection for the relevant articles than to permanently block so many IPs, many of which I imagine are public or dynamic. The possible collateral damage to beneficial editors must be gauged. I, for one, am in favor of putting a halt to anonymous IP editing, but this is not the place for such advocacy. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Agnes Mary Mansour GA review

I performed the review. You can see it and respond at Talk:Agnes Mary Mansour/GA1. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Marching fire

Hello! Your submission of Marching fire 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! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Los Angeles Changes

The information I edited was not incorrect and was taken directly from the 2010 United States Census cited in the sentence immediately before my edits. Please check your facts before reversing legitimate changes. LACATony (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Falsetto

Please do not remove the "breathy" portion again from the article. I am by no means convinced that there is any controversy here surrounding the term "breathy" as no sources have been produced with a counter opinion. Please participate in the talk page conversation, rather than creating edit wars.4meter4 (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD. If some fact is so challenged that it requires multiple references, but that same fact is not present in the article body, the guideline at LEAD is not being followed. Binksternet (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Buster Keaton cry for help

Hi B. There are too many redlinks (deadlinks) and I think we have too many wikified titles in the TV section, and in the entire article actually. I think we should turn all Keaton's titles into a list, easy to read, reference and wikify when applicable. It ought to be in the form of a list instead of this awful mess that is nearly impossible to edit. A form of this message was posted at the talk page, but I wanted your input and help in this. Imagine how it would beautify and streamline the article! All we'd have to do is create the columns and move the text there; I'm short on time for columns but I'd be willing to do the rest if someone would do the columns and make a few title/text moves to the columns. :D Djathinkimacowboy 16:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

B., do you think this[4] is the place to begin? I'm scared to try it since I'm a butterfingers, but it might be just the thing. On the other hand, I wanted something like this[5] only without the boxed-off section. Djathinkimacowboy 16:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me answer on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, forget it. Djathinkimacowboy 03:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Cold fusion

FYI, I responded at Talk:Cold fusion. Greg L (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Marching fire

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Grotrian-Steinweg

Orlady (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC) 08:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! It's featured on Portal:Germany, - if you have more DYK related to Germany feel free to add it there yourself! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will remember that. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

One thing you could do for the article is to move some of the Grotrian-Steinweg images from German Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I found a helpful soul for you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Marvelous! Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Rude action

hello,

before you reverting anything, you need to read our guidelines before perfoming a revert. Please read Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment carefully; I give you one example of text which is of high importance:

It is vital that people do not take these assessments personally. It is understood that we each have our own opinions of the priorities of the objective criteria for a perfect article. Generally an active project will develop a consensus, though be aware that different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area, such as this. Many projects have an assessment team. If you contribute a lot of content to an article you may request an independent assessment.

Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

??? Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

!!!--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are saying. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you did not understand what I wrote, as there was a typo, which I now corrected. But you will hopefully know how to assess articles. Regards.♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I know what edit warring looks like. At Talk:Otis Redding it appears you are going alone against the consensus of two editors. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither you nor Jezhotwells provided a reasonable explanation of re-assessing. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

We both zeroed in on the poor writing quality. You have not answered how it is that your self-assessment is somehow more correct than two objective assessments, made by native English speakers. Binksternet (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You both DID NOT give any examples of re-assessment. And, again, I did not assessed it. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

IP 58, Pork pie hat and IP is doing other hats

B, now you see what is happening. The IP has continued disruptions at Fedora and at Bowler hat. Apparently the IP is doing nothing wrong and no one even warned the IP except me, three times now. They turned down my requests to have the IP blocked as a vandal, and won't even semi-protect the articles. So apparently the IP is just OK with them. Did you see the other editors coming out to revert the IP's edits besides you? I am advising User: Salvio giuliano about this[6]. Djathinkimacowboy 18:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for your attention to this. Slavio's given IP a 24-hr. block but I suspect that is not going to do anything except relieve us from trouble on Fedora. I get chills thinking what IP will do to Porkpie hat & Bowler hat if IP is not indefblocked, which it should be. Djathinkimacowboy 18:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's just another vandal, no more. Wikipedia has a ton of 'em. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry to have to disagree. This one is gunning for Salvio which is all silly, I know, and it even made Salvio chuckle. But I do not think it is a laughing matter. This kind of thing angers and frightens me, this specific targeting of an editor and related articles.. Djathinkimacowboy 22:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Talk:Cuban Missile Crisis

Hi. Just a quick reminder that edit warring is not a good idea. Just because it is being carried out on a talk page doesn't stop it being edit warring. If you disagree with the source then engage in discussion with the IP editor rather than repeatedly reverting their attempt at contributing. The talk page isn't an article, the claim may not be true but it isn't causing any harm because it isn't in the article at the moment. After repeatedly adding the source to the article, the IP editor decided to start a discussion on the talk page. By repeatedly reverting their attempt at discussion you could prevent a potentially productive wikipedian from becoming involved in the project. --Mrmatiko (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been told that the dynamic IP editor 92.7.x.x is banned editor HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

That is why I have been reverting the editor on sight. Banned is banned. Binksternet (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's quite a long list of puppets! Sorry for assuming bad faith. --Mrmatiko (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Otis Redding

I have started a discussion at WP:DRN regarding the classification of the article Otis Redding. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not even C-class, dude... more stub. Re-assessed, thanks. --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

invitation

You are invited to help solve a problem. [7] (LAz17 (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)).

JULY 1943 KILLS very unaccurate

Hello, Binksternet, I disturb You as I do think that the table with the kills of Litvyak should be deeply corrected if not deleted at all. I have just published today the most updated book about Soviet airwomen, with the newest and unpublished data and information about Litvyak available on the market. There is absolutely - for instance - no evidence that Litvyak on 16 july shot down a German ace. That day the Luftwaffe Experten listed in the teble belly landed for an engine failure subsequently an air fight. Now, this is NOT a kill. Moreover, there is only one source - Pennington, pag. 140 - that states that Litvyak that day scored a kill, while Cottam (Women in War and Resistence) writes that Litvyak that day had just to belly land. But there is absolutely no proof that anyway the German ace was hit by Litvyak, as there is not known any claims record on Litvyak side where is noted exactly the Planquadrat Koordinaten or the exact point of any of her air victory. Still, on 1st of August 1943, the Jagdeschwaders engaged along the Mius front had not aircraft damaged and Litvyak was not the one who "taran"ned Merkle, as no one of the witness saw and says that. So I propose to delete those unaccurate credited victories. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is on my watch list. If you discuss proposed changes on the talk page I will respond there, and others will have a chance to weigh in. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

New disruptive editions

SPA has started again his personal war on Uruguay, using unreliable sources. See. --Fixertool (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on it. Sourcing is not terrible, though. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If you check spanish edition you'll see that information is included as a version, not as something probed. It's a controversial matter added in the introduction of the english article in an artful way. (Note the words "Matos' carnival march", devaluing the author of the piece).

He usually distorts the texts he cites, too.

This user has a sockpuppet (el rrienseolava) and with both accounts is involved in this kind of editions in half a dozen WP projects (spanish, french, etc).

-- Fixertool (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/El_rrienseolava has not edited for four months, so the trail is cold. If he edits again I will start a sockpuppet investigation listing Special:Contributions/Edipo_yocasta as the puppeteer because the latter account is older. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Now, with his last editions here, and because of this, I believe the Template:POV is required. --Fixertool (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess I was not clear at all with my reversion and my explanations: did you notice the article already includes two times the last text inserted? And it was inserted for the same user, if you check history. A little article with the same text, basically, included THREE times and by the same user? I wonder why. -- Fixertool (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for my emphasis on this edition, but I was waiting for your answer.

Did you take the time to check that references now are duplicated (3 with 5, 4 with 6) and the same text is triplicated?-- Fixertool (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Corona del Mar High School

Vigorous debate on the merits is one thing, ad hominem attacks another. Guy Macon is getting worse. If you are administering this debate please reprimand him for calling other editors "liars". If you're not, please tell me where to file a complaint. Thank you.68.4.61.51 (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Try WP:WQA. That's usually the first place to go. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

Not sure if ive sent you a message or not, apologies if i have but just a quick message of good will; hope you have a great winter holiday and a new year :) User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 18:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a fine Christmas yourself! Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Active Noise Control

I'm no physicist, but I happened to notice the debate at Active noise control (doing some audio research) and it appears Wikifiximprove is correct. At about 340 m/s, 500Hz works out to a little over 2 feet in one wavelength. I've been acused of having a swelled head, but . . . . I think the 5000Hz figure looks believable. What is frustrating is that this is a classic example of a useful article and a potentially excellent analogy for making the subject understandable, that is unsourced - in either form.--Rwberndt (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I found a reference for 800 Hz, so my 500 and the other guy's 5000 were both wrong. ^_^

Oh well! Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for your perspective on SOPA

Hi Binksternet, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#ONGOING_DISCUSSION_-_Splitting_the_Article. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there, Sloggerbum (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes

		Merry Christmas!
		May the year ahead be outrageously good and may all your articles be featured. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Best Wishes for the New Year! Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for the speedy DYK review of Charles Howard McIlwain! Much appreciated. Lagrange613 15:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine work on the article! Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

OWS criticism section dispute resolution

I have requested dispute resolution here, and named you as one of the parties involved in the dispute. B^e——C_ritical 04:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

edit References to Pseudoscience Should Be Moved to Historical Footnotes

Query to the scientific community:

To the Directors of Physics Departments,

LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear, historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"

1) Is this science or pathological science? 2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information. 3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it? 4) What peer review journals do you source in this field?

Binksternet sir, P>S> 1) Any suggestions before I move forward with this? 2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value?

Thank you for your time,

Gregory Goble gbgoble@gmail.com (415) 724-6702 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Goble (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. That should answer your question. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

El Varón Domado listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect El Varón Domado. Since you had some involvement with the El Varón Domado redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

As an Elvis expert, I would agree with your argument concerning Elvis's predilection for very young girls. See Talk:Elvis Presley. Onefortyone (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)