User talk:Binksternet

Dowd

Hi. I'm not sure Dowd belongs, as the reference is to existing engineers. --Epeefleche 03:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Epeefleche, I hadn't gathered from context that the list was to be only existing engineers. Since this is an encyclopedic entry and not a job listing, I don't see a problem with including those who've passed away.

I split the list off to its own heading and added some more famous engineers. Binksternet 06:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It referred to notable engineers. Dead people are no longer engineers; hence the reference was to existing engineers. Nothing to do with a job listing -- if I'm not an engineer, and am not on the list, if that is what you are suggesting. It looks cumbersome to me the way that it is presented, but if no one else objects I won't.--Epeefleche 06:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest deleting the redlinked ones, or creating articles, as if they do not have Wiki articles they are not of note.--Epeefleche 09:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks are just Wiki articles that haven't yet been written.  ;^)-- Binksternet

Often because the person is not notable. If a non-notable article is written, it is speedily deleted, resulting in a red link as well. Unless someone plans to write articles that pass the speedy delete test in the near future, I would delete the red links as lacking indicia of notability.

Am moving this to audio engineering talk page as it may interest others.--Epeefleche 17:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Audio restoration

Nice job working on Audio restoration. I had cut out some spammy stuff, but simply didn't have the knowledge to bring it up to quality standards. It is one thing to 'understand' the process in general, and quite another to have the level of expertise needed to add some really good content. You additions breathed some new life into the article, and I just wanted to say thanks. Pharmboy 01:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the 'thank you'... ;^) Binksternet 11:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Horn loudspeaker

Ah, well, it would still be original research. We'd need a secondary source that discusses what you want to add in order for it to be properly supported. An encyclopedia rarely covers extremely new technology not yet covered in secondary sources. GlassFET 14:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

P-38 Lightning References

Hi Binksternet, your 1991 Bodie edition is exactly the same as the 2001 paperback reprint. Thanks for adding some very relevant references. FWIW Bzuk 01:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

Noise reduction mess

What's up with this awkward split you're in the middle of, leaving the article history behind? Was there a discussion some place that I missed? It seems to me that if a split is agreed on, then the original article should be kept or moved. It is always improper to copy the contents of an article to a new place, leaving its history disconnected from it. In any case, I'm not so sure the split is worthwhile, since the techniques of noise reduction for audio and for images are not so different. Dicklyon 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to retain/move the history of the original (audio+image) noise reduction page? My intent was not to lose the history but to separate audio from image as the English was convoluted in the attempt to corral both subjects into one page. It's still convoluted in the two splits but (as you note) I'm in the middle of my plan. There was no prior discussion--I looked at the Noise reduction Talk page and found virtually nothing; nobody was having a dialogue and nobody was in the middle of edit wars. It looked like nobody was home. Next time I'll throw the idea out for discussion before I jump in and start shoveling text this way and that! Binksternet 04:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you do it by moving the existing article to one or the other of the new split names. But for now, let's just back out the split and call for a discussion. I'll show you... Dicklyon 04:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, show me. Thanks. Binksternet 04:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. See the split proposal at noise reduction. Your new articles are changed to redirects until we resolve this. State your plan at Talk:Noise reduction and wait a few days for other opinions. Dicklyon 05:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That was fast--I was worried you'd be spending more time fixing the mess than I spent creating it. I'll throw out a plan. Binksternet 05:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

re:Ram (Ship)

I don't know much about naval rams myself, but I do think those two articles should be merged. I would suggest merging Ram (ship) into Naval Ram. I'm going to put a proposed merge tag up for these articles. Parsecboy 15:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Shakes the Clown

The films list box for Adam Sandler is included because he is in the film, and as a general rule actors do not have box lists, but because of Sandler's role as a producer and co-producer he does have a list, which also lists his films. You give the example of "best boys and catering" having film nav boxes which is a little glib, as there are no such boxes. It is unlikely that all the other actors will ever have nav boxes because it is not general practice to have nav boxes for actors, however they may one day be a Bobcat Goldthwait director box like these, which will take the boxes on Shakes the Clown to two maximum, I do not see how this impedes the article, it provides a useful link to Sandler's other work. If you want to create a Bobcat box then I could point you in the right direction but to suggest that the only route is to overload the page with 30 actor nav boxes, or remove the Sandler box, is a bit glib. As I see ti there is nothing wrong with the article at the moment, although the actual body of the article could do with expanding to give a more structured article, such as a seperate plot and cast list. Darrenhusted 15:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll put creation of a Bobcat box on my "to do" list. Thanks for the information. Binksternet 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Okey dokey. It was relatively easy since Bob's only directed two films so far. Maybe someday I'll flesh out the box to include writing, acting and TV. Binksternet 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

Oughta is now a word but okay. I won't edit your very incorrect grammar again.--Angel David 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Once grammar is incorrect, can it be very incorrect? Just curious... Binksternet 21:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that could only happen with ain't...but, you know what I mean.--Angel David 00:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Overtones

Thanks for you comments. Feel free to reword the cringe bit. Just a phrase to reflect what really happens if the guitar is not set up right.

Kevin aylward 11:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I took out the cringes. ;^) Binksternet 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oakland Hyphy

I didn't write it. I just move it to a new section. So feel free to modify it. Chris! _{my talk} 23:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Done! Binksternet 15:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust

It is quite acceptable to delete talk by banned users and their sock-puppets. Indeed, your restoring his comment just violates the ban. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked for the WP guide regarding deleting talk page entries made by banned users who have set up a second account to get around their ban and I don't see it. Do you have a supporting reference? Binksternet 15:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding. The user is blocked. What do you think that means? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

See this. One could argue that, in reposting his comment, you violated this but I am willing to let it drop. He has been blocked indefinitely. Anything he now writes on Wikipedia is a violation of the block, and gets deleted, period. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There it is. Thanks for locating the reference. I hadn't seen it on WP:Banning policy or Blocking policy pages. Binksternet 15:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Shumann Resonance

> You wrote that the ninth overtone to 7.8 Hz is ~60 Hz.

Ah, that should be 'eighth' overtone, or nine times the fundamental freq. And they should call it a "resonance mode," not a resonance. Except for the first one, the experimentally measured Schuman frequencies are about 6.5Hz apart, which authors put down as due to the spherical geometry of the cavity. I'm still looking for a paper I read awhile back, where researchers measured that overtone as 59.9Hz, and discovered that the North American power grid was pumping some radio waves into the overtone, which allowed them to pick up 60Hz signals hundreds of miles from power lines (and presumably at any other spot on the Earth as well.) --Wjbeaty 05:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Let me know if you locate the paper. I'm editing the Schumann article in anticipation. Binksternet 20:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dan Dugan

Hah! You will see those adds were both a very long time ago. I also created a Dan Dugan page at that time and it became extremely controversial because of his radical opposition to the Waldorf School, which eventually completely overshadowed his audio work in his article. Dan got into a huge editing war there against Waldorf advocates who branded him a nut and he ended up getting the whole article removed per his request AFAIK. So..... nice try but it isn't going to happen soon Charlie Richmond 02:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Rough business! Thanks for the info. I didn't realize Dan himself pulled the plug. Still, it doesn't seem right for him not to have a page. Binksternet 18:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Rubber bus on Light Rail

I realy don't understand how a Bus with big-broad rubber tyres can role within 1435 mm (light)railtrack. A BUS is certainly not a Tram, nor LRV, nor Metro or whatever Name you will give it. Buses are only (public) Transport Vehicles, no Rail Vehicles. Please don't REVERT mij Delete...... Gr. from Holland, ing. D.A. Borgdorff, P.EL. Eng (retd.) +> 86.83.155.44 12:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the illustration showing how buses can be adapted to rail use? Buses and trains both have wheels--it's simply an engineering problem. Or do you have a financial interest in making sure buses are never modified in this way? Binksternet 18:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

SIGINT

Thanks. Still a lot to do, and I may have to backtrack on FISINT, which covers too much -- and also mixes both SIGINT and MASINT. Looking at your interests, perhaps you might want to put in something of voice identification under COMINT? Howard C. Berkowitz 02:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it but no promises. ;) Binksternet 02:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Also look at either "National Means of Technical Verification", or, as I messed up and am waiting for an admin, "National Technical Means of Verification". I moved some of the FISINT there, and also simplified FISINT. More material is in SIGINT requesting comment. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On your Mark

Just noticed Mark 14 torpedo. I've come across an online source for that journal ref somewhere, but since my hard drive crashed :C I can't find it. Have you seen it? Trekphiler 20:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're talking about this article by Frederick J Milford in a 1996 issue of THE SUBMARINE REVIEW? And here's part two. Binksternet 21:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. (And I should have thought to try adjusting the browser number...) Just 1 thing. There's another site, which I think recycles much the same text, but includes tables of specs. I just don't know where... Trekphiler 22:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Anatolian greeks

As a Turk I appreciate your intervention [1] in the Greco-Italian War talkpage about the Turkish warrior mentality of the Anatolian Greeks. I want to add that the Greeks deny this factor (that has changed the usually weak greek army) because of their hate toward Turkey. I want to make you aware that the nationalist Greeks -like Cplakidas- are erasing any reference to this fundamental reason of the turkish warrior mentality (for their defeat of the Italians in Epirus in 1940) in a not wikipedian way. Can you help us to defend the thruth and the impartiality of wikipedia against those Greeks? One fourth of the greek army in Epirus was made of Anatolian Greeks and that is a huge percentage that changed the way the Greeks fought. Thank you. Eteturk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.205.76 (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand the way that I see the question. I see 25% of the forces as angry and recently dispossessed. Maybe they fought more fiercely. I see 75% of the forces as defending the land that they were born on. Maybe they fought more fiercely... I don't have any expertise regarding the Turk/Greek question but I am aware of how important it can be to have a small inspired force of great fighters mixed into a larger army. Even a force of ten percent superior, motivated fighters has made a big difference in historic battles... In my opinion it is possible that the Anatolian Turks helped make the Greek army harder to beat. It's also possible that the Greeks themselves were tough enough. I will not guess. Binksternet 00:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudeness

What's this supposed to mean? Since when did correcting unclear grammar become an "unhelpful edit"? Sonic Craze 23:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see it. It's your "on on" typo which threw me off. I'll get rid of one of the "ons" and make your edit happen the way you intended. Your way has better positioning of the date information. Binksternet 17:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you fixed it yourself. It's all good, then. Binksternet 17:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Allison Krauss article

Thanks for inserting the line break (new paragraph) on the Krauss article! Get so wrapped up in content that sometimes grammar goes by the wayside--Wordy1 15:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here

Heh heh; no problem. Binksternet 15:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

About the Rowan's article

Hi Binksternet, I need to consult with you regarding what's permissible here. That IP address who left the message has to be Rip Rowan. It's obvious. If so, Rowan can't post external links to his own website. Isn't it a clear violation of Conflicts_of_Interest? Regards. Jrod2 21:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much time right now to research WP rules but I don't see a problem with an author pointing to their own magazine article as reference. Binksternet 21:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You may not see a problem because you are not too familiar with all the guidelines, and no question, this one is a tricky one, but it's a non-brainer to most admins. I am leaving this for you to read: "Writing about subjects close to you". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrod2 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The two examples given in that link are of one's own company and one's own family, not of one's own study subjects. At any rate, all Rip needs is an ally who offers up the Wired article link and writes about the material. Binksternet 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes and No, read:"When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit. If you don't have such sources, don't write.". And, yes; all he needs is an editor (a preferably a known one like you) that can find that Wired Mag link. Using the ProcRec site would brings us back to WP:VERIFIABILITY and problems with COI WP:Conflict_of_interest.Jrod2 00:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert

In reference to your reverting of the image http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AP-51D_Tika_IV_361st_fg.jpg&diff=171812654&oldid=171810260 this matter is being resolved, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Help_needed_on_Image_challenges and discuss with the administrator and user O₂ (息 • 吹) -TabooTikiGod 03:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That particular image has no need of arbitration or resolution--it's simply a photo of a US military airplane taken by US military personnel. The general "PD-USGov" license tag suits it perfectly. At any rate, I'll stand down on the issue while the unnecessary tempest you created plays out via administrator intervention. Binksternet 03:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I will refer you to this discussion talk page and administrator O₂ (息 • 吹) for all future reverts on Wiki Commons. -TabooTikiGod 05:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Refer away. You haven't yet spoken to my contention that the license tag "PD=USGov" is sufficient. When it applies to an image, it trumps any other problems you might have with source. Binksternet 07:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:IUP, end of discussion. -TabooTikiGod 07:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sonic weaponry in popular culture

This was nominated for Prod. I de-prodded it, but it will certainly go to AfD. Please refine the classification of items I started, and it would be a good idea to put in some exact references to reviews or books about the various films and so forth. This articles can sometimes , but not always be defended -- if enough work is done. DGG (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

F-86 and screen size

Bink, I also use the 1024x768 but with Explorer 7, not sure why we don't see the same thing. Maybe Firefox is differential. I left another message for Bill under his talk, with an idea for a joint project to expand the operators section with more data, with a single column list and pic along the right side. THis should be okay with all browsers. I hope... Thanks, Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Links to stories of the American Storyteller Radio Journal

I feel such a links is very appropriate. The work of this journalist is highly researched and must be listened to to be appreciated. There is no charge for listing to the story and I am not affiliated with this news organization. I feel this link falls in the guidelines. Thanks Trgwilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trgwilson (talk • contribs) 02:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

USS Wahoo

"That was quick! you deleted a link I just put in; what's wrong with it? It seems fairly even-handed to me. And I've been looking at these 3 boats (U-852, Torbay, Wahoo); it seems right to put the same links for all of them. Why so protective? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)"

No reply to this; you deleted the link 2 minutes after I put it in, so I think 15 hours is long enough to wait for a reply. And as you’re deleting it here,I’ve moved the discussion to the Wahoo talk page. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; I see you've replied at the Wahoo talk page. I'll take the discussion there. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Falsetto

An article that you have been involved in editing, Falsetto, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falsetto. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Swarm of Edits

I'm not sure it's a matter of style, although it's amusing to think it might be. My impression had been that it's in fact easier for other editors if one makes relatively small edits (even if there is therefore an irritatingly huge number of them). It looks as if I may have been mistaken about this. If so, I of course apologise.

Wild Surmise (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been wondering if the 'Compare selected versions' option doesn't overcome your difficulty.

Regards,

Wild Surmise (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It does, except when the selected versions are on separate pages, like if the versions are hundreds of edits apart (though only days or weeks apart). Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1958 Buick

Sorry to tell you this, but the 1958 Buick you photographed is not a Limited. As the Buick Limited article states, the slanted chrome strips applied to the rear fenders and the horizontal dividers in the taillights on the Limited were exclusive to that series. All the other series had the rear fender insets completely filled with chrome, as on this car, and carried vertically divided taillights. If you can find this car again, you should be able to find the series name on the trunk lid. Then hopefully you can transfer the photo to the appropriate Buick series article. (Be sure to change the jpg name and the photo description before you do.)

The Special did not carry the series name on the sides as all the other series did, so that is probably what this car is. (Either that, or a Century, Super or Roadmaster that has had the side nameplate removed.)

Just doing my bit to make Wikipedia as factual as possible. I hope I have been of help.

Thanks, Josephew --Josephew (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for the info! Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Carpenter Gothic

Hey there Binksternet. You seem to take some interest in the Carpenter Gothic article. I am curious to your thinking on your picture editing on the article. The first image is tilted and has telephone or electric cable running through it. The third image, being brick, is stylistically related but atypical of the style. The American Gothic House is both prototypical and quintessential. I will also post this on the article Carpenter Gothic discussion page, which is probably where the discussion should unfold. Thanks. CApitol3 (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Food Irradiation

Thank you for fixing some other attack of vandalism to this article. Hope that more people assist against those frequent and systematic deteriorations. Dieter E (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My interest in the article is simply one of wanting to keep vandals and unsourced comments out. I hate to see any article deteriorate. Binksternet (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oakland Hills, Oakland, California

Hi. This article that you created apparently already exists at Oakland hills. You might want to merge and redirect accordingly. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that merge was next on my list. Thanks for the reminder. ;^) Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh uh. No notice, no discussion, no merge. Besides, the idea that there is an "Oakland Hills" neighborhood is highly questionable. See discussion at the article. Tmangray (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla

Original telegram about Serbs and Croats is here. Article is one great nationalistic compromise so it is not writen that when he has been asked on USA border crossing from where he is Tesla has answered from Croatia. This is not in article because source of this statement is not on internet. He has been born in Croatian Krajina but in 1881 territory has been restored to kingdom of Croatia (inside Austro-Hungary) because of that on border crossing he has declared like home country Croatia.--Rjecina (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sound recording

Why did you remove the paragraph on the phonautograph from the Sond Recording artcle? Don't you think it was an important event in the history? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I take that back. There seems to be a problem in that Wikipedia is mixing earlier edits up. I see that some others have noted this on the comments page. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Subwoofer Good Article Nominiation

Thought I'd let you know about the good article nomination for the subwoofer article: Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Engineering —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodle snacks (talk • contribs) 03:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your input on "unremarkable aircraft categories" discussion for deletion

Thanks for your input and your opinion. The discussion is actually going on at [2]. Would you mind resubmitting your input at that site? Thanks in advance. Raymondwinn (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Binksternet (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Power Cable Reviewer

The monkey who wrote that article later became the director of marketing for an "audiophile" equipment company. There's a certain poetry to the insider dealing here. Bruno23 (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He certainly proved himself in that review; it's its own job application. I can't imagine how terrible I would be writing a ton of slick ad copy about basically nothing. Binksternet (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

bing

hello. thanks for the note. however, this is a classic case of overlinking , and i've restored the edits. further, in future, if there's an edit you wish to revert, please be careful to only undo that portion you challenge. thanks --emerson7 05:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

consider this a warning my friend, you are right up against wp:3RR...take it to the talk page. --emerson7 07:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

again, thank for your thoughts. let's take it from the top. 1) there's no reason to add small font tags to the infobox. that's been deprecated for quite some time. 2) succession/nav boxes go to the bottom of the page, and at any rate there's no reason for there to be two redundant vehicles for academy award navigation. 3) with regard to the gross overlinking, they are redundant and useless. however, in the spirit of detente, aimed at halting the revert war, i'll compromise on what's there. --

emerson7 07:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

NOAA Ships

Hi. I'm sorry about the spelling but I will get the source ASAP and I will tell you.

Plyhmrp (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Plyhmrp

I just got it, look at the article on NOAAS Fairweather and NOAAS Hi'alakai and they are both from the USCG and the Millitary Sealift Command. Plyhmrp (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Plyhmrp

Your continued violations of WP:POV

It is not up to you to prevent other users from viewing links which utilize or demonstrate the "analog hole." Your actions are in violation of WP:POV Either cease your vandalism or suffer the unmitigated consequences ny having your user name distributed amoung the large number of analog hole supporters. 71.100.12.251 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)