User talk:Binksternet/Archive2

Wikistalking

I've been aware for some time that my edits are being frequently adjusted/deleted/mangled and just plain monkeyed with by some one who uses your name. It's a case of wikistalking! Or is it? On looking into your contribution history, it appears to actually be you. The surprising bit is that there is such an overlap of interests. Audio, WWII, some aspects of crypto, ...

Your edits are often improvements in style or clarity, especially when I was attempting to shoehorn something into an existing niche. Some are the usual difference of opinion, stylistically. Still others are more substantial.

Under this last rubric, we find the deletion of a point at Loudspeakers regarding the inverse relation between cone size and distortion at low frequencies. It is so well known as to be a triviality that response for any driver drops after a point related to size (and impedance match to free air), not resonance (that's an additional issue having to do with mass and restoring force which are in principle independent of cone size).

That being so, it's clear that a larger cone will begin to roll off at some lower frequency, mass and restoring force being held constant. The distortion issue is slightly less clear. There are magnetic changes which occur with increased VC current (ie, at higher excursion) and there are mechanical effects which are more serious at or near mechanical limits (ie, at higher excursions). Furtheremore, higher excursions exacerbate the effects of some construction variances, specifically an noncentered voice coil. Thus we see that greater excursion is correlated with greater distortion causing effects. The unclearness comes from some drivers which are optimized for high excursion at the expense of other issues (often greater cone/voice coil mass or decreased efficiency from an underhung VC. The point is one which Kippel in Germany has investigated at some length and for which articles (in JAES etc) go back as far as the 1930s (at least that I've seen reference to). So, to decrease distortion, reduce excursion for the average driver, and to increase low frequency output (w/o Bose style -- or any -- electronic compensation) increase the size of the driver. All assuming lack of some impedance matching enclosure such as horn or some such.

This leaves us with exactly the point in the lines you deleted. Smaller drivers tend toward higher distortion at the same output level, and with higher excursion, also required in smaller drivers Larger drivers reduce the excursion requirement, and so -- other things being equal -- the distortion. Since the situation is exacerbated at lower frequencies (ie, with subwoofers) larger is still more better in them.

Finally, for the ie (not i.e.) and eg (not e.g.), these are purely stylistic differences not Holy Writ. Are you one who does not insert a comma after the penultimate item in a list, or one who inserts a comma there? One is termed the Oxford style, both are widely sued by the very literate. In my case I don't use the periods. You do, but it's not clear to me that you are correct in zapping the periodless versions out of hand.

Best wishes, and happy wikistalking. ww (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Winston, you and I appear to share a couple of key interests. I've been a longtime consumer of WWII history and I am very interested in all professional audio subjects as it's my chosen career. Crypto falls under my gaze only when related to WWII. Other than that, my editing efforts regarding musicians, films, silent films, 78rpm records, architecture, San Francisco Bay Area locations, cruise ships–ocean liners and tango music don't seem to intersect at all with your world. There are 2,322 articles on my watchlist; the chance that we run into each other is high, especially after it's established that we each like to contribute in not one, but two, common general subjects.

That said, your accusation that I am wikistalking is false. I definitely don't go to your contribs list to see what you've been up to; that's not my concern. I don't follow you around and try to interfere with your edits. What does alert me is when you've taken an interest in rewriting an article that is on my watchlist. Here, I make sure to set aside enough time to carefully analyze what you've added in plain sight and what conscious or unconscious biases or errors you've introduced in the process. In the past, a few of your additions and copyedits have included assumptions about subwoofers or loudspeakers that come across as universal, though they may not be at all. For instance, in late March 2008, you wrote that one of the primary purposes of a subwoofer enclosure is to increase its efficiency so that a smaller amplifier can be used. Personally, I would have said that one target enclosure design goal would be along that continuum, but that other concerns could easily come to the fore, such as trying to achieve maximum output power or lower the low-frequency extension or lower the amount of distortion. Any of these can be (and have been) design goals to the detriment of efficiency. It's little word choices like this, showing a limited viewpoint, which I keep an eye out for. Others do, too; it was actually User:Noodle snacks who followed up and re-edited the example I just mentioned so that it was less black and white.

Your recent Loudspeaker edit mentioning the inverse relationship of woofer size and distortion at low frequencies made this assumption: Size affects radiation patterns so that large drivers are usually unacceptable, while larger sizes are required for low distortion low frequency output (smaller drivers require proportionally larger cone excursion, which increases distortion in several ways). Okay, I had two problems with this sentence. Large drivers are unacceptable for what purposes and under what conditions? How does size affect radiation pattern? A little explanation would go a long way to help the reader understand what is intended. Then there's the part about smaller drivers and larger excursion... Though true for single small drivers trying to do the work of larger ones, the statement is patently untrue if large numbers of smaller drivers are employed in one enclosure. And, as you note, there exist some rare driver designs that are optimized for low distortion at higher excursion. I took the whole sentence out because it was that much flawed.

You know, the topic of distortion coming from extremes of voice coil excursion deserves its own section so that the various issues and counterbalancing forces can be discussed and explained. You appear to be hip to the nuances... Be bold! Binksternet (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Another example of why I take a careful look at your editing work is this addition on June 13 to the article about loudspeaker enclosures: "While simultaneously, and incidentally, addressing issues higher in the audible frequency range such as diffraction from enclosure edges, the baffle step effect when wavelengths approach enclosure dimensions, crossovers, and driver blending." This sentence is 100% confusing. It has no subject! Its iterative clauses offer only obfuscation, yet the edit summary you provided says "clarity".

The "eg" and "ie" issue is one User:Dicklyon has also harped about on your Talk page. I agree with him. The Wikipedia manual of style recommends using two periods. See WP:ABB Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... It was a joke....

Your point about unclarity is correct in some instances, which I noted in my comment.

Your suggestion that lots of small drivers can have lower excursion an so lower distortion is certainly correct, but it is the acoustic equivalent of using a larger driver, and the reason for the lower distortion is essentially that excursion is reduced. As for the issue of distortion occurring only (or perhaps significantly) at extremes of excursion in a given driver, Zaph (in Wisonsin?) has conducted extensive tests of many drivers from assorted makers and it does not appear to be experimentally verifiable. Zippel (in Germany) has analyzed the subject in considerable depth ans has developed some analytical techniques for exploring the issue. He also reports experimental verification for the distortion outside the extreme excursion regime. Although one of the drivers he analyzed seems to have an asymmetric assembly problem (glued wrong, perhaps). So I have to disagree with your excision of the these observations in the articles we've been editing, though perhaps not with your understanding of the issue. You are correct that, if it cannot be included in existing articles, of which I am still not convinced, there should be a separate article dealing with the issue.

The difficulty of writing for a general, non-technically informed audience, in a general article which will be used as an article of first resort by such readers, and doing so concisely, is not minimal. It occurs in other writing as well (consider most computer technical manuals). Increased clarity is good, but excision of comments from knowledgeable editors shouldn't be a first resort.

As for the "ie, eg" issue, opinion differs amongst language stylists and, rather like English spelling, there is a bit of anarchy in such matters. If WP takes a strict prescriptive (rather than descriptive) position (or has), than it has -- in my view shamefully -- joined the Miss Fidditches of the world. Kind of like the difference between fans of Webster's 2nd Unabridged vs fans of the 3rd. ww (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The joking tone comes across much better in person. o_O

You and I are certainly working with the same goals in mind. We both want an article to be comprehensive and thorough. I'm sure we'll be able to achieve these goals here. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I'm getting too woozy to sort out whether your edits or mine make more sense here, but we were having an edit conflict in the one section. Having other open edits to backup to, I cede the matter to you, but note I probably undid most or all of your changes in that "cable names" section. Sorry, but don't see well enough right now to reconstruct, and my version was good enough once I fixed my own "counts error" in table. Glad to see someone is tending the "store". Good luck! // FrankB 05:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I took this to Talk:Power cable. See you there... Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Binksternet has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page USS Missouri (BB-63), and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Three revert warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Okinawa. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on SS Monterey history please do not edit war. As you can see there were other editors who agreed with you. If you are having problems with an IP address like this (a person who is probably not aware of WP:3RR), you can alway leave a message on my talk page or at WP:ANI. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Phase Linear

I have added the "Official Phase Linear web page" link back in to the reference section after I saw that you had removed it. Please reconsider. Dean has more information and history about Phase Linear than almost anybody. Dean and I were two of the last people to close the doors in Lynnwood. His site is much more informational than "commercial". Much more so than the other site in the references section. Thanks for your consideration. Bradl54 (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 12 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yucca Flat, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Rudget (logs) 09:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed your Yucca Flat article and thought you might be interested to know it is one of the most viewed DYK articles in July. See stats at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cbl62/sandbox3 . Good article and nice hook. Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cokeandpoprocks

Hi
How could Cokeandpoprocks get four warnings for his edits of Talk:Zodiac Killer today when he only edited it twice?
Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, must be too many open windows on my desktop. I'll revert my fourth warning. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Automatic add button

Even though we already confirmed that we disagree with each other on the disputed content, you would better refrain from using provocative and inflammatory language like "delete button". It implies that I'm deleting like a machine without thinking and your "add" is fully justified. That is insulting. I don't see such justification from either your statement at the talk page or edit summary.

As long as you can convince me that the content you want to keep it is relevant to the main topic, I would improve it even though my writing is not that good like you. However, your "add button" does not improve the quality of the article. Being well sourced does not warrant any "irrelevant subject". As you wrote previously, you want to keep it because the content contents your curiosity and "you want to". However, that is not a good reason for your disregard to reaching a consensus. Once, a newest addition is contested by editors, normally the addition is halt or removed until the dispute is settled down. You should not blindly add it because you want it. We need a formal meditation on this. --Caspian blue (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page reorganizing

Apologies. I was trying to improve and wasn't aware of this long-standing WP tradition. Thanks for mentioning that. If I may ask: who suppose to to delete discussions that are no longer relevant? For example, in the talk page of the dynamic range compression the request to add the 'multiband compressor' bit was long added. Thanks. Izhaki (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Old talk page entries that have no current relevance can be put into an archive. Check out Help:Archiving a talk page. It's pretty easy. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Added an achieve. Let me know if what I did is OK. Izhaki (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Artillery on Berlin

I read it some years ago, but did not make a record at the time of were I read it(Sigh!). But I heard it in a couple of documentaries and one only recently "Hitler's Secret Bunkers" an interesting program if the Battle of Berlin is an interest as it explains why the Germans fought so hard for Templehof --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Program looks very intriguing. I'll have to hunt that one down. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #7

In the area? You're invited to
San Francisco Meetup # 7
	Date: September 6th, 2008
	Time: 3 PM
	Place: Freebase HQ, San Francisco
prev: Meetup 6 - next: Meetup 8

You received this invite because you added your name to the Invite list. If you don't wish to be invited any more, simply remove your name. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Miller orchestra links

Hi Binksternet, I am wondering why the links I try to put are not comply to WP:EL. The bands I try to put in are worldwide reknown as top quality reproducing the sound of Glenn Millers music and also Glenn Miller specialists would agree to this (see Glenn Miller group in Yahoo). So why should Wikipedia not contain this information for its readers ? Of cause the bands work commercial, but they still care about the live performance of this music. Please comment on this.

I wonder if you've read WP:EL which talks about external links on Wikipedia. Check it out. Your links aren't about Glenn Miller specifically, first off, so they don't need to be on the page. The Glenn Miller article exists to tell people about him, not about you. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Crafton, California

I just wanted to stop by and compliment you on your work on the Crafton, California article. You worked very quickly to bring it up from little more than a stub to a well-sourced article. I'm impressed. Best, Alanraywiki (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your adding the bit about the convalescing patient naming the place was spot on. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Curacao, Queen Mary

I heard it pronounced that way on Unsolved Mysteries. If its not pronounced that way, then how is it? (And yes, it would be nice to have it mentioned in the article.) --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster says the island Curaçao is pronounced ˈkyu̇r-ə-ˌsō, -ˌsau̇, ˈku̇r-; ˌk(y)u̇r-ə-ˈ. The ship HMS Curacoa (D41) is an alternate spelling of that same word, but the alternate spelling suggests to me that the pronunciation of the last syllable would never be -ˌsau̇ and would always be ˌsō with a long oh. For broadest understanding by all readers, I would write the first pronunciation choice out as CURE-uh-so. And I would do this at the HMS Curacoa (D41) article, not at the Queen Mary article. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. I am also accepting Tigers on my user page if you are so inclined.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

LARES

Thanks for the heads up! I am watching the page now and will contribute as possible. At the moment I am not an expert on the guts but there are some interesting developments in the works and I will probably become a very knowledgeable one in the near future.... Charlie Richmond (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Did you see my email followup on this? Charlie Richmond (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes! I thought I shot a response back. At any rate, it's a very interesting development. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead changes to audio mixing

You have changed the lead definition of audio mixing from:

"Audio mixing is the process by which a multitude of sound sources are combined into two channels or another multi-channel format, like 5.1 surround."

to:

"Audio mixing is the process by which a multitude of sound sources are combined into one or more channels"

I think we might be approaching this article from a different point of view, where you think more of live sound, while I think more of studio mixing. I have left a comment on the scope of the audio mixing article in the talk page of the WikiProject_Professional_sound_production. Please have a look. In the mean time:

• If we exclude live monitor mixes, I think it is fair to assume that (roughly): 94% of today's mixes are two-channel, 5% surround, 1% mono.
• The surround in this definition puts a cup on the amount of output channels. "a multitude to to 5.1 surround" means many to a few, while "multitude to one or more channels" can mean many to many. Some readers can understand it as 100 channels are mixed into 50.

I personally think that the definition prior to your change was more suitable. Izhaki (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss this at Talk:Audio mixing. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Blanked image City Hall of Buffalo in article Art Deco

Hi, Binksternet, just to follow up our discussion in the Talk:Art Deco article (why the image is blanked out. Please, see discussion with Finlay McWalte Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing: sequence 5 July 30 :5.25 .Dieter Simon (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

First: I suspect you may have a poor understanding of the three revert rule. Two: The passage you quote has a very specific phrase. One you are repeatedly choosing to ignore. To be specific: "use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors." Myself and another editor engaged you on this topic a year ago. Rather than pursue the discussion, you simply waited a year and re-added the disputed information. That is a very poor tactic and not at all in the spirit of the guidline you quote. Please take your own advice and deal with this issue on the talk page. If you disagree with the majority opinion here, seek dispute resolution of some kind.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The normal course of WP:3RR action requires a warning after the third edit and prior to the editor being listed at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for their fourth, illegal revert. The warning I gave you satisfies that requirement. Further discussion of the issue should be carried out at Talk:El Sobrante, California. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

XB-17

Official response from the NMUSAF is the airframe is refered to as the Model 299 and XB-17, see discussion page on the B-17 Flying Fortress. -Signaleer (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Naturally. They've got a lot of history with the designation. I expected no different from them. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Chaplin & Ballet Méchanique

I was originally going to add a link in the Chaplin article to Ballet Méchanique. But then I read it, and realized that its only about the musical work, not about the film at all (except for the introductory paragraph). So I didn't link it, and suggested that someone fork the article so there would be something on the film. As it is now, there is nothing, so that your link links Chaplin with the musical work Ballet Méchanique - and there is no such link in actuality. -- kosboot (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Chaplin & Atheism

Hi, i have added back the statement regarding Chaplin's atheism in the "Political Beliefs" section of the article. I am afraid that you have not mentioned a proper reason as to why you reverted my edit in the article. I believe that the fact of Chaplin's atheism is relevant and must be mentioned in the section, since it is referenced by a reliable source and also because Organized religion is political by its very nature. If you disagree with me and would like to have that statement removed, then please provide me an appropriate reason (if there is any) as to why. Removing the sentence because it wasn't expanded upon or blended into the article (whatever that means), is not an appropriate reason.

Also, please keep in mind that Atheism is neither a religion nor an ideology. It just means disbelief in God and religion. It doesnt have to mean anything else. Therefore, in my opinion, the four word statement "Chaplin was an atheist" will suffice. Joyson Noel (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's marvelous. Good writing is out the window; patchwork English is in. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, What exactly do you mean? Are your statements related to the article, or are you saying that my writing skills are terrible. If the latter is true, then its OK. Be honest! I wont get mad. Joyson Noel (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Charlie Chaplin. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already read the talk page. This is merely a personal question that i have posed to you. There is no need to bring this up in discussion. If you are too proud to reply back. I will understand. Joyson Noel (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion about your writing skills. I have a poor opinion of a single sentence that doesn't fit the smooth flow of logic. Everything I have to say about this subject is at Talk:Charlie Chaplin. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If so, then what exactly is marvelous? You say that you have poor opinion of a single sentence that doesn't fit the smooth flow of logic. Fine! But what did you find so marvelous about it? I would like you to clarify that. It seems to me, that you were either making a vain attempt to be sarcastic or you simply didnt know what the hell you were talking about.Joyson Noel (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nanking Massacre

Please be a little more careful when you make reverts. I removed the term "infamous" which is an obvious example of POV language - state the facts and leave it to the reader to decide if someone is infamous or not - NPOV is a cornerstone of wikipedia.

Also if you wish to include such controversial claims as civilians being executed under the guise of military executions, then please provide reliable sources for such claims.

I don't mean to be rude, but not using blatantly POV/leading terms (infamous being pretty blatant) and having to provide citations for controversial claims are pretty basic requirements for wikipedia. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed few instances when "infamous" is appropriate. The Rape of Nanking is one of them. Many, many writers have used the adjective to describe the event. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

wikistalking

although I always assume good faith when interacting with other editors, I am finding it hard to assume that you reverted edits of mine on three different articles by pure luck.

Please do not wikistalk me.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking doesn't mean looking at another editor's contributions and then checking on their work to see if it is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, which is what I did with you a few hours ago. Neither does it refer to correcting a user's changes that were deleterious to the article. Here's what that term means:

(copied from Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking)

Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption.

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). These logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter.

I have no intent to disturb, disrupt or harass you. I have no intention of being tendentious or getting involved in personal attacks. I'm interested only in achieving the highest possible quality wiki articles. The articles that you saw me take part in were culled from your contributions list and targeted by me specifically because I deemed them in need of improvement. I looked at a great many of your other edits and found them to be in alignment with the goal of high quality. Those many edits of yours were ones I chose not to touch. There's no wikistalking going on here. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems a little strange that despite having no contact with you in the past, upon editing one shared article, you immediately go to two other articles that I edited and reverted my edits, what is also a little strange is that the three articles that you reverted are all related to negative aspects of Japan/Japanese history and that all of edits you made on those articles, could be considered to be anti-Japanese. Had you gone to three unrelated articles, and rather than making reverts, made constructive edits, that improved on my edits, I might be less skeptical. I find it hard to believe that you chose articles merely because they needed improvement, my edits relate to soccer, cars, food, world history, etc - however the edits you chose were all closely related - are you trying to tell me that it is merely a coincidence? Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, my action of looking at your edits to see if some need correcting — this is not "wikistalking", it's responsible editorship. I haven't claimed coincidence, in fact, I claim the opposite: purposefulness.

I have no expertise regarding your edits to soccer, cars, etc. I edit a wide array of subjects just like you do, and World War II is one area where your interests and mine appear to intersect. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Do your interests also include anti-Japanese sentiment? That is what I was trying to remove from those articles.Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Japanese sentiment exists in some areas and in some peoples, and for valid reasons. Blind removal of such sentiment would not always be accurate. Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

reporting on that sentiment is fine for wikipedia, letting that sentiment influence your edits however is far from fine. I personally could think of many reasons for having sentiments against many other countries, for things they have done in the last - I dont intend to allow those personal feelings to cloud my judgment when making edits though. Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway based on my dealings with you so far, I assume you are acting in good faith, and while we may disagree on some articles, I hope we can remain civil and within wikipedia rules. Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Japanese history textbook controversies

not that I am the be all and end all of wikipedia, but I am happy with the final edit you made on the Japanese history textbook controversies article.

maybe we can both leave that article alone and consider consensus to be reached.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

People With Tinnitus

You marked People with tinnitus for deletion without so much as a reason why. Please explain your actions so that a reason to keep it going can be made. Radman_99_1999 —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The standard template for deletion includes a link to discussion. Please go to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_16#Category:People_with_tinnitus to state your case. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will, and thank for stating your case on the article-in-question's discussion page. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

May I please ask why did you correct one of my comments in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_16#Category:People_with_tinnitus ? You even removed one of my paragraphs! I know you put it back, but why did you do it in the first place? I must say that is of poor character and I feel you are trying to undermine my attempts to save the category. Please give me an explanation so this can be cleared. Thank you. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple edit conflict (simultaneous editing action) after which I tried to figure out what was supposed to stay. I didn't understand until later that you were deleting your own paragraph. No harm intended. Binksternet (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. No harm, no foul. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you got your way. I'm glad all the work I wast starting to put into it is going to be gone. I now have to delete the category, unless you want to take the joy of doing it yourself. Since you've seemed to make yourself the authority over the tinnitus page, I just also wanted to let you know I will add all of those on the HEAR list to the tinnitus list. I will also be adding every name I can find with a good source, since I can't do it on where it should be, a category. After I'm done adding all I can find (with good sources) to the list, I guess I'll leave Wikipedia, because no one can do any good here without someone coming over and flushing it all down the toilet. Thanks for showing me how things are done at Wikipedia. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oakland--Demographics--Crime

So you gutted parts of the first, and subsequent, paragraphs that charted Oakland's changing demographics, in particular the near quintupling of the Black population between 1940 and 1950, then subsequent further increases that brought a peak in the Black population sometime during the 1980's at approximately 47%. And along with these increases, we saw massive increases in crime. Of course all that is gone now, so you deleted the first paragraph entirely, claiming it has nothing to do with crime.

Well, not anymore it doesn't.

There is a direct correlation between increasing percentages of Black residents and increasing crime, however much you and others wish to deny it. The point is not to vilify Black people; on the contrary, the facts need to be known and faced for this phenomenon to be understood and crime eventually reduced--to the benefit of Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians and others.

I'm going to start putting some of the hard facts back in, as time allows. They will be sourced. Remember that "Crime" does fall under "Demographics." This is the place where people can inform themselves as to the facts. Apostle12 (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for showing how demographics are connected to crime. I'm totally against demographic information presented with its connection to crime being left implied. The connection must be made by reliable sources who we quote or use as a reference. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I'll get going on the sourcing.Apostle12 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Commas in large numbers

In Re to User_talk:Texnic#Commas in large numbers:

WP:MOS specifies that large numbers have a comma after every three zeros, not spaces. I reverted your edit to USS Missouri (BB-63). Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

According to [1]: Three−digit groups in numbers with more than four digits are separated by thin spaces instead of commas (for example, 299 792 458, not 299,792,458) to avoid confusion with the decimal marker in European literature. Shall this be discussed in WP:MOS? --texnic (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead and start a dialog about this in WP:MOS. I'm pretty sure they're already aware of the space-between-groupings-of-three option. They may, however, be open to change. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Internet Archive

Internet Archive is a standard site for inclusion on Wikipedia it contains tons of material. It is a non-profit non-commercial open-source site comparable to Project Gutenburg in scope and mission (actually it has more than 10 times the number of works and authors so there will be more than 10 times as many articles with links to it). The search is unfortunately wide for Chaplin, it gets a lot of false positive, because the IA database has problems so there is no way to refine it, but the positive hits are listed first. And since IA is always adding new works, search is the only way to link to it (ie. adding specific links will work for today, but in a year it will miss a lot). Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I need no reminder of how wonderful the internet archive is. I live near their main center and I know people working there. I hear quite a bit about it and use it a lot myself. What I removed your link for was that it was non-specific; that it incorporated simple search terms which will migrate over time and yield different results. I don't think this is a worthy "External link" to add to an article. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh wonderful, glad you are familiar with Internet Archive. Can you explain how the search will "migrate over time"? In fact it is a quite specific search string, I've been building search strings on IA for a long time and know its limitations, but also how to get the best results when the database is limited. How do you propose we include Internet Archive works in Charlies article, both what exists there now, and what will be added in the future? Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that we will need to list each Chaplin gem separately. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

La Clandestine Absinthe

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

Hi, we need some help on this. The editor is making claims about this absinthe brand being available in the US, but it is a different version. "In June 2008, the US Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau approved La Clandestine for sale in the United States.[5]" What we understand is that the label is different and the wormwood content has been lowered for the US market. The page is basically a google advertisement for the brand and the editor refuses to respond to polite questions. We guess he is the brand owner.FortDaniel (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise... I looked at the article and I can't really see the problem. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for looking anyway. The article is deliberately misleading as it claims that it is based upon a 1935 recipe. This original recipe has been changed to comply with FDA regulation 21 CFR 172.510 and the wormwood content lowered for the US market. The original La Clandestine has higher thujone levels than 10ppm. Other manufacturers have made it clear that there is a European and US version of their product. It is misleading to US consumers but not in the commerical interests of the manufacturer to make this clear. This product is hyped all over MySpace and elsewhere in breathless prose. Let it be I guess. The main wiki article on absinthe is controlled with an iron fist by the same group and academics have refused to contribute FortDaniel (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Binksternet has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page USS Iowa (BB-61), and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this Copyeditor's Barnstar and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comfort Women

Comfort Women means prostitute in Japanese. The question is betraied case, women recruited who did not know work for Comfort Women. The question is somewhat complex. thank you--122.135.163.183 (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comfort Women means prostitute in Japanese? is it your(Japanese) original research? Masonfamily (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, let's take this discussion to Talk:Comfort women where it belongs. Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

At the time, prostitution was legal in japan. so many comfort women were Japanese, certainly there were Korean and so on. Controversy was women betraied by recruiters and assignation house owners. and Japanese army involved the betraied case to some extent or not.--122.135.163.183 (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

prostitution was a legal in japan. However, many women did not know what is the comfort women job.(this is a sourced material) at that time, Korean, japanese did not called prostitute as a comfort women. comfort women is not a prostitution. don't pushing your original research. Masonfamily (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean it, let's take this discussion to Talk:Comfort women where it belongs. Next addition here is getting deleted. This is my Talk page. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

TINNITUS

While I note you promptly reverted to delete all of what follows below, can you please be more constructive and express an opinion of the subject matter in question please? Thanks a lot, 91.110.180.20 (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The September/October 2008 issue of "Ears News" includes a paper compiled by Ann Perry of the B. & D. T. G.: "Copying Strategies to help you manage your tinnitus":

Diagnose & understand your tinnitus

1. DO NOT PANIC. Tinnitus is very rarely a sign of a serious, ongoing medical condition.

2, CHECK things out. The sounds you hear may actually be normal sounds created by the human body at work.

3. SEE an audiologist or ENT (ear, nose and throat) specialist who is interested and experienced in tinnitus treatment.

4. REVIEW your current medications (prescriptions, over-the-counter, vitamins and other supplements) with your medical professional to find out possible effects on your tinnitus.

5. BE WARY of a hopeless diagnosis or physician advice like, "There's nothing you can do about your tinnitus. Go home and live with it." There IS something you can do about it.

6. BE a detective. Keep track of what triggers your tinnitus.

7. KEEP UP TO DATE about tinnitus. More and more research by the best and brightest is bringing us closer to successful treatments and cures for tinnitus.

Find good treatment & take care of yourself

1. BE KIND to yourself. Developing tinnitus means you have undergone a significant physical, emotional, and maybe even life-style change.

2. EXAMINE how you live to find ways to eliminate or reduce stress in different parts of your life; stress often makes tinnitus worse.

3. PLACE IMPORTANCE on healthly eating and staying active. If you are concerned, one-by-one eliminate possible sources of tinnitus aggravation, e.g. alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, chocolate, excessive salt and sugar and over-the-counter medications. (Do not stop taking prescription medications without consulting with your doctor.)

4. DON'T GIVE UP on a treatment if it does work right away. Some can take quite a while to have a positive effect.

5. PROTECT YOURSELF from further auditory damage by avoiding loud places and by using earplugs when you can't avoid loud noise.

Your attitude matters

1. DO NOT create any negative forecasts for your tinnitus, such as "This is never going to get any better." Counting on a better future can help you create one.

2. TAKE HEART. In most cases people with tinnitus "habituate" to it, meaning they get used to it and notice it less than at first.

3. BE INVOLVED in your recovery. Consider yourself part of your treatment team where your thoughts and feelings count.

4. DO NOT WASTE time blaming yourself for your tinnitus. The causes of tinnitus are varied and sometimes difficult to determine.

Line up support

1. LOCATE people who understand your struggles and learn that you are not alone. Have people in your life, who though they cannot "see" or "hear" your tinnitus, understand that you have it.

2. FIND a support group that will truly understand your struggles with tinnitus and help you sort out useful from useless information. You will find compassion, companionship and coping strategies. (The British Tinnitus Association [BTA] has information on tinnitus support groups and individual, helpful volunteers.)

3. EDUCATE your family, friends and co-workers about tinnitus; tell them about the conditions and settings that are difficult for you; and ask them for their support. See our group's information leaflet "Help for the Helpers" which could prove useful.

4. CONTINUE SEEKING reliable information from the BTA and other creditable sources.

This paper has been adapted from one seen on the American Tinnitus Association's web site. We [the Birmingham & District Tinnitus Group] have taken the main sub-headings and incorporated the experiences of our own group members.

Any text in all caps is pamphlet-appropriate, not encyclopedic. Your failure to reference this work by citing the September/October 2008 issue of "Ears News" was another reason I deleted it. Finally, this material is largely redundant to treatments already listed. If you had taken the time to add a little bit of this material where appropriate as opposed to copying and pasting the whole thing then the redundancy wouldn't be the third and final reason why it got deleted. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

More importantly hopefully it may even have been overtaken by todays news in The Times/Nature!

91.110.180.20 (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oakland: Demographics: Crime: Cosby's Contribution to this Discussion

You have no right to remove Cosby's directly relevant, sourced comments. Apparently you endorse Hutchinson's viewpoint and wish this to remain the only viewpoint appearing in the article. This amounts to shameless POV pushing. Most of Hutchinson's comments are general and have nothing to do with Oakland in particular. Cosby's comments are general and certainly include the problem of black crime in Oakland. If you remove Cosby again, I will remove Hutchinson also. Better both viewpoints should stay, as they represent two notable, legitimate, and contrasting analyses. Your handling of this issue, and your high-handedness in general, amount to the excercise of WP: Ownership and will be reported as such if you continue. Apostle12 (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going by the name at the top of the page: Oakland, California. Did Cosby give his speech in Oakland? Were people from Oakland speaking on the same platform? Was Oakland mentioned in his speech? No, no and no. Citing the Cosby speech would be perfect for the as-yet unwritten article about Black-on-Black crime or Inner-city crime, but for the article about Oakland, it carries wide of the mark. Cosby rocks... let's find a connection to Oakland, though. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

re:Barnstar of Diligence for Uruguayan tango

Thanks a lot, it was quite some work. Mariano(t/c) 05:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. You deserve the barnstar! Binksternet (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

P. D. Q. Bach

[2] Care to explain? user:Everyme 00:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! The issue has come up before in the article... there should not be a link to Baden-Baden because the name of the place is the humorously twisted Baden-Baden-Baden. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[3] Erm, with all due respect, that's precisely the reason why there should be a link to the real-world place that inspired the fictional place's name, to inform readers (because that's basically what Wikipedia is about). I assumed you reverted in error, but since you reverted again, I think I'll request a third opinion to help us sort this out. After that, we can still file a request for comment. user:Everyme 04:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC) See Talk:P. D. Q. Bach#Baden-Baden link

Flip-flopping on the tinnitus article

Care to explain why Hear Net has been a good resource before, but you decided that it is not?? You have seemed to have made yourself the sole-authority and police of that section. PR Web is a well-reputed and established news and article source. Hear Net is also a good source, at least explain to me why that it is now not. I added those names by the rules that were set up and you still don't think it's not good enough. You have made things very confusing for people to add names to that list, because you say any notable person can be added with a good source, but you secretly don't want the list to have new names. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I read the tinnitus discussion page. I still dispute your claim about PR Web. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Why revert 'Video Engineer' edit on Broadcast engineering?

Mind explaining why you reverted my edit on Broadcast engineering? I'm a Broadcast Engineer and the title 'Video Engineer' is also used by many companies. Rather than starting a separate article about Video Engineers it's simpler to add the title there, since most of their duties overlap greatly.—IncidentFlux ^{[ TalkBack | Contributions ]} 22:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast Systems engineer includes video if present. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but its got more to do with title usage in the industry, for eg: Mandy - Video Engineer For Field Produ —IncidentFlux ^{[ TalkBack | Contributions ]} 22:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Start a new article entitled Video engineer. Be bold! Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR notification

Okay, you want this? Well that have a good eat. Don't forget that your 3RR would be before mine.^_^

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Talk:The Rape of Nanking (book). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Ralph Waldo Christie

Just to expain why I formatted the dates as I did is that according to WP:MOSDATE, all dates should be formatted the same way for grammatical consistency within the article. The reason I did it the US Civvie way (besides not knowing that the US military organised their dates sensibly) is because the first dates in the article were in this format. I apologise for the inconvenience cause, but suggest that all dates in the article be changed to d/m/y for consistency. -- saberwyn 21:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya; I might just have to bound over to WP:MOSDATE to offer my opinion. I think it's perfectly fine to give a military man's civilian information (birth, schooling, marriage, death) in his country's date and time format while, in the same article, use military time and date format for his military experiences. This inconsistency doesn't seem to me a problem. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

SSL Compressor

Yes, I think that because it looks empty inside, one thinks that it can't be it. I assure that it is an actual unit. You can see an actual picture example of a DIY SSL compressor. Thanks for bringing up the concern directly to me. Best, Jrod2 (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Topless DJ Involvement

Binksternet, you have not responded or posted on the topless DJ page for several days now. Please post on my talk page, or the topless DJ section of the DIsc Jockey talk page as to weather you intend to continue to stay invloved in the discussion. This is nessecary so we can know if we still need your approval to form a consensus. --Ipatrol (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I reserve judgment. Thanks for asking. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if no one says anything by friday I'll assume we have consensus, as per WP:SILENCE. In the mean time, what do you think of JIP's idea of a brief sentence or two instead of a picture? --Ipatrol (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The deadline has arrived. If you do not say anything by 16:00 UTC, a consensus will be assumed and the discussion will be archived.--Ipatrol (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Audio ProcAmp

Hi there, hope you're well. You mentioned you're an audio engineer. Can you please help start/expand the Audio ProcAmp section of an article I started a while back about Processing amplifiers.

I'll add some detailed technical data about Audio ProcAmps at a later stage, but was hoping to get info from actual audio engineers first.

Thanks. —IncidentFlux ^{[ TalkBack | Contributions ]} 11:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting your article on my watch list, but I'm an end-user, not an expert designer or EE degree holder. I'll think about what should go there and add what I can. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Valueyou flaming

Thanks for your reverts. For the record, above user (et al.) is throwing a tantrum becasue they don't like regulations. Issue starts here Long history of problematic behaviour, account swapping over 2 year period, see comment by clerk. User believes real world credentials overules policy.

Are you an expert in this field? I am offering primary source information. This is differnt than a POV. They are important as a group not because some book said they are, but by their productivity - with which I am aware.

This is a fresh and emerging history and I would think that a PhD who has worked as an archivist at the Dia Art Foundation could offer such a list without a book saying it is OK. Valueyou (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

user is now engaging in flaming campaign as part of their protest. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this please and see what you think. My personal opinion is that the user is engaging, at the very least, in meat puppetry, more difficult to prove is the possibility that the same user is employing different accounts from differnent IP's, home, work, perhaps. An unresolved sock puppet case has been filed, if you would like to add a comment you can do it here. Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Response from Valueyou

I was unaware I was doing anything incorrect as I am a fairly recent editor here. While I am here to beg your pardon I see that Semitransgenic continues to attempt to charge me with this false silliness. I am sure that Semitransgenic would like to see me kicked off of wiki as I dare oppose Semitransgenic's aggressive tactics. What a waste of time. Valueyou (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet Jossi has reverted one of the comments that was part of the above canvassing. While you were engaing in reverting the comments I also removed one from here. Jossi is now insisting that I go through admin to remove the comment, I see this as largely unecessary. Can you offer an opinion on this please? Semitransgenic (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFC/USER request for signature

Hello Binksternet, I would like to file a WP:RFC/USER for Valueyou and as you commented on this individuals user page regarding their conduct perhaps you will offer your signature. I will be petitioning the other editors involved also. My statement will read as follows.

Despite a protracted dispute with Valueyou leading to intervention of multiple editors, Valueyou's immediate action, following the conclusion of this period of disruption, was to revert the disputed article to a condition that Valueyou deemed acceptable, therefore leaving outstanding issues with WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:SYN, unaddressed. The dispute esentially relates to disagreement about tagging and to Semitransgenic's request for citations. The origin of this dispute can be traced to here. The user engaged in WP:CANVASS by copy pasting a personal attack across the talk pages of multiple articles user Semitransgenic has edited. There is also evidence of Valueyou accusing Semitransgenic of anti-semitism, resulting in Valueyou attempting to canvass ברוקולי. This last allegation arose as a result of the statement made here at 17:42 on the 10th of August. Irrespective of the nature of this hostile campaign Semitransgenic attempted to arrive at a truce but Valueyou's repsonse was instead to engage in antagonistic reversion. Please advise. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. Best. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is tedious but very much to my point that Semitransgenic acts like a bully. For me all that is in the past however (per his false sock-puppet charges against me). My request that he is now seeking retaliation for was intentionally tightly focused on the technical question at hand which User:Verbal has stepped in to find sensible middle ground and -- that I accept. (see Noise music talk page). If Semitransgenic, you, or others would care to hit the books and find the relevant page #s (I was working from my notebooks and am not currently in an English speaking country) that would be most useful to getting the page up to snuff. Semitransgenic seems only to cry out for endless citations for every line of text and never provides any. Let's all pitch in to get the page impeccable. Valueyou (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Multi-driver speaker systems

You dont't think those speakers work, then come to my dorm at college wheren i get in trouble for not only extremely loud bass/music, but for literally shaking the whole dorm bulding. It's true. Alfred State College. Dorm: MacKenzie East Room:G2C1. Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with how well the article is written? Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks alot for adding all that history, though. I coldn't find all that. By the way, the RCA two-ways were not old. They are new. Go to Wal-Mart. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I made all 32 of my articles in the last two weeks. Over two articles a day, closer to three actually, because a few were removed; plus many sub-pages that are not quite ready. As far as references, I hoped others would add to the articles and, actually, compared to other new articles, mina seem to be generally better, really. I've been to administrator talk pages and gone to the articles they have created and they are often very short with little/no references and they have been there for a long time with no warnings. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about other editors, I'm talking about you. If you want your work on Wikipedia to stand on its own, it has to be supported by outside references. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Sorry about that-I am actually usually picky about grammar but I had gotten that one mixed up. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Les Paul image

Not a big deal, but I would have thought a straight on shot of Les would be preferable to one that does not show his face well at all. Your thoughts? (Mind meal (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

I liked the color photograph with more background detail to establish where it was taken. The b&w one was more 'arty' and less revealing, in my opinion. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Art Deco

Thanks, I think I'll get the article up to GA status. With a bit of work and some more referencing, it'll be up to scratch. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 06:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #8

In the area? You're invited to
San Francisco Meetup # 8
	Date: November 8th, 2008
	Time: 2PM
	Place: Metacafe, Palo Alto, California
prev: Meetup 7 - next: Meetup 9

You received this invite because you added your name to the Invite list. If you don't wish to be invited any more, simply remove your name. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your wikistalking is not appreciated

I am incerasingly annoyed by you constant involvement in what I do. I understand WP:OWN, but I particurlay have no tolerance for persistant wikistalkers. Wikistalking has now been established as outside the behavioral guidelins and can result un a block or loos of the ability to view the contributions page.--Ipatrol (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking involves a bunch of actions that don't have any resemblance to what I do here. I haven't adversely affected a targeted person, I haven't threatened or intimidated anybody, I haven't tried to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for anybody, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. I HAVE moved to correct any edits that I see as wrong or inappropriate. I HAVE tracked people's edit histories to see if they are making beneficial edits or not. I only get involved with another editor when I see a problem in their edits.

I'm not worried about the block you threatened me with as I feel my wiki activities are completely within guidelines and aboveboard. When you took part last month in the Disc jockey page by censoring an image that showed breasts, you gave notice to the community that you don't intend to follow important guidelines such as WP:NOTCENSORED. Since then, every once in a while, I check in on your edits and largely leave them alone. This is NOT wikistalking, it is keeping tabs on the quality of Wikipedia. When I do see something that you have done which I feel requires correction, I make the correction. For instance, I recently proposed deletion for your poorly thought-out template called Keg, I recently supported User:Gurch after you gave him 48 hours to reply to your one-sided demand for an explanation regarding a tongue-in-cheek essay he wrote, and I copyedited and corrected spelling in your redundant and unnecessary essay called "Let the reader decide." On the other hand, I haven't done anything to stop you from calling a questionable Scramble to fight vandalism during the hiatus of the leader of VFU and I haven't felt it necessary to call for deletion of the many other templates you have made to serve as voting and polling tools. I never interfere with your dialogues on people's talk pages.

One template of yours makes me cringe: the one calling attention to spelling errors. Doctor, heal thyself. ;^)

I am proud of my work here on Wikipedia and I don't have anything to hide. I will continue making the sorts of corrections and additions that I have been making for over a year. My activities will intersect with yours only when they need to. Let's keep it collegial and business-like, and let's get on with improving Wikipedia like we both want to do. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Binksternet,I think it would be an adopter's job. Your constant hounding interferes with my ability to enjoy editing. Especially when compounded with your perception I am an established editor and not a reletive newcomer. Where Icome from, mabye some politeness would be appreciated. I think the only contribution page you should watch are that of vandals, put your rollback to use, do some substantial editing, and stop bickering with me.--Ipatrol (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

76.29.59.179

Hi
If I may ask ... how is any of those two edits vandalism.
The first edit change the Hannah Chaplin's stage name to her birth name, the second edit changed his active time to match his activity listed in the article ("Chaplin first toured America with the Fred Karno troupe from 1910 ..."). Edit summaries would have been nice, but I think he was being bold, and in no way disruptive. Am I missing something?
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 11:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Those two edits of mine came after a string of one-digit vandalism edits from IP addresses associated with schools. Looks like I pulled the trigger when I should have let these be. Thanks for catching that! Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for removing the warning. :) Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 16:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

By Colorbow

How come you omit a link with complement and relevant info in regards to public interest (relating to what is "most popular" and common), to an article, Amplifier, with foremost theoretical approach (not at all wrong in itself). I do not accept your action and may I believe it was done by you in subjective moods, not by what is infact generally considered as qualified. Besides, and in the view if only for the issue just above, you seem to act on people in a way that cannot be justified in my view (like explaining/post-justifying because of emotional triggering etc). In my humble opinion, such an editor should carefully review his or her motives, whether they reflect personal attitudes vs what is considered, as mentioned above, of general and public interest yet considered as qualified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colorbow (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking this discussion to Talk:Amplifier#amplifiersite.com link. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:UniversalAudio-Logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:UniversalAudio-Logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

battle of normandy photo

out of intrest how did you know that photo of those churchill tanks was not from normandy?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Road sign bit and cafe name. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

HD77

Marantz HD77s and HD770s are two different models. They were quite similar, however.

user:Daniel Christensen

Are you ready to crap all over my latest article; Crown International Incorporated? As a manufacturer of pro audio eequipment and soundboards, etc. its right up your alley. Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

PS Be sure to give it plenty of tags, and happy wikistalking!

If you can already see places where the article should be tagged, why don't you fix those problems as you develop the page? Anyway, I will most certainly go look at the article, since Crown is a very important audio company. And I will fix things I can fix quickly and I will tag things I can't... just like I usually do when I find articles about audio. Your bringing this article to my attention won't make me look at it any differently: I won't give it more or less attention than it deserves. Say, thanks for starting the page! It needed to be done. There was even a note to get that page started here. As for wikistalking, my previous replies still stand. I DO look at several editors' edit histories and I will continue to do so. It's not some kind of targeted or evil stalking, it's only me doing my small part to make sure that stupid shit doesn't get plastered into Wikipedia... Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No tags, just moved the title over, gave it a major rewrite with inline references, a company infobox, a product image and much more material. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Diffusion of technology in canada

I keep meaning to do something with that article - but.. it's so big... --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! That will be a piece of work. Me, I only came into contact with the article after searching for the mostly useless phrase "It is important to note". I have no further interest in the article. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fisher DS-825

Did you know that I actually wrote this article as a joke because I was pissed at the asshole on Youtube who made a gay video of himself destroying a pair of them? Tje video was an external link. Did you watch the video? Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hell no, I didn't watch it. There are very, very few youtube videos I ever click on and that wasn't one of them. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: How do you cite kowledge gained by things like ownership of something, such as Marantz 2235 or Marantz HD77. To say it's not possible is to say the thing itself is not a notable source of infomation on itself!!!

Ownership of a product gives you experience that qualifies as original research. Here is what original research is worth at Wikipedia: WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Loyd Ivey

Speaking of unreferneced info and biographies on living people- saying that Ivey has "a great interest in any audio related subjects" and "Ivey likes fast cars and motorcycles", is rather a bit of hearsay and perhaps slander, isn't it. Hmmmmm Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's the reference for that: Loyd Ivey's personal homepage. The reference is in the Loyd Ivey article, though it's at the end, not positioned inline right after the relevant sentences. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That "flash animation joke that was made by his friends as entertainment for his 50th birthday" that you said was not a reliable source is PART OF HIS WEBSITE, which you call notable because you cited it in your revision, particularly for what I called hearsay.

"Ivey likes fast cars and motorcycles" & "Ivey likes fast cars and motorcycles" = http://www.loydivey.com/bio.cfm

My prevous revision with all that info = http://www.loydivey.com/birthday.cfm

Gee, those URL's look aweful similar, don't they? Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell me you're not seriously thinking that a joke flash animation counts as seriously as the man's own bio? Wow. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you always have such a good comeback? I suck

Redlands Music

I had to laff - the actual quote, engraved over the Redlands Bowl, is "Without vision, a people PERISH"! LOL Mark Sublette (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What do they do Without Spelling...? Heh heh. Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's like those folks who talk about the Seventh CALVARY coming to the rescue... Mark Sublette (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)