User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet	My articles	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

P-38

Sorry, Gunston docet... "Questa strana macchina volante, durante le prime prove di rullaggio, si schiantò ai bordi della pista.... Questo aereo era arrivato a New York in appena 7 ore e 2 minuti con due sole fermate per il rifornimento..." I hope you can read italian.... You can use automatic translator... Merry Christmas, Blinksternet regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to read Gunston in Italian or English to know that Gunston is incorrect about the "crash" and incorrect about "only two" fuel stops. Warren Bodie is the more careful writer about the P-38 and he describes the events far more accurately. Please see Talk:P-38 Lightning for the full reasoning. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

SL Crusade

A review of your recent activity has revealed a rash of edits of link outs to material related to Second Life; while I have not inspected all of these edits, investigating one such edit (at Avnet) has shown it to be counter productive and uniformed- the related site was directly topical and associated officially with the company in question. If you do not have time to investigate material you consider questionable, then refrain from editing said material- your actions are destructive. You seem well intended- but the results are not in keeping with your apparent intent; reconsider your agenda.Mavigogun (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I went and reviewed a great number of Second Life presences in Wikipedia, and I saw that most were good for the encyclopedia. When I looked at the Avnet page, I noticed that there was nothing in the article about how Second Life includes an Avnet business presence, so I removed the link. Another editor with closer ties to the article saw my deletion and returned the link with some incremental explanation of its utility. Thus, my deletion helped the article in a small way. I still think that the article body could talk about the SL location and bring it into perspective, rather than having it be an unexplained external link.

So you see, I'm not the mad deletionist slavering after Second Life blood. I simply wish to see SL links have a very close relevance to the subject matter. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Legal threat

Advice posted on the ANI thread is to email Mike Godwin (talk · contribs) with details. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have sent a letter to Godwin. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Behringer

Wondered why there was a lot of activity on the talk page, just saw your post on the admin noticeboard. Not cool at all. Still, at least there are other eyes focussed on the article now. Thedarxide (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is very good to have more expert attention on the article. When I read the legal letter from Behringer, I immediately wondered if you got one, too. Looks like "no". I must be easier to locate in real life than you are! Cheers... Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

After the outing episode threw up some very bizarre suggestions for my identity, it's obvious that there are several people with my username. That said, I'm guessing since you're in the states, that it might be "jurisdiction" thing. Thedarxide (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Just an FYI, I also removed the same conspiracy theory from the article Most Holy Family Monastery. If you could keep an eye I'd appreciate it. Davidpdx (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Harry Edwards

no problem, I put plenty through GAN myself, so it's only fair to put something back. It was a good idea to put him through as a scientist, rather than join the long queue of actors (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If I'd known you were going straight to FAC, I'd have given a more detailed review. You should kill the links, like ref 1, that only go to a Google book page that doesn't contain the information it is supposed to support. I'll have a run through to see if anything else needs fixing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem :-)

--Fredy.00 (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you measure a river

I know it's so random, but is it gallons per second or something? I know there's a way... Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You got me there. :(

Binksternet (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hotel Valley Ho

On January 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hotel Valley Ho, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I am very sorry for vandalizing your page. I just didn't understand why my edits to Compact Disc were considered as vandalism. Once again, I'm very sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.169.148 (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The 500 DYK Nomination Medal

Whoa, Binksternet, thank you so much for the pleasant surprise. I'm the first one with the 500-medal? Cool. Thank you very, very much. I hope I can get the 1000-medal soon.  :-) Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone gets that 1000 medal, I will be betting on you. :)

Binksternet (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Daniel O'Connell (journalist)

I did a review of the article Daniel O'Connell (journalist) that you nominated for GA status. I have made some notes at Talk:Daniel O'Connell (journalist)/GA1. Please respond there to the notes I have made. Thanks. maclean (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I added Daniel O'Connell (journalist) to the Journalism section of the GA list [1] If there is another more appropriate section you would like the article in, let me know and I can move it. maclean (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Journalism works fine. Thanks for your hard work in reviewing! Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Merge template from Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Next time you remove a merge template like you did here after it had been added after only five hours before, if you could either give a reason in the edit comment as to why you think the discussion is not valid, or tell the editor who added it if they made a process mistake.

The merge template was still on hibakusha until just now. I think my request for a discussion was valid, but, without the template being left on the Atomic Bombings article, I do not think a full discussion/consensus per Wikipedia's policy on merging could be achieved. I think that discussion could have made both articles better. Thanks XinJeisan (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that you did comment on the hibakusha talk page. And, that is what I did. However, I still think the above is valid, because it seems to me that taking of the merge template so quickly without comment makes the assumption that the request was not made in good faith. I am sure that is not what you meant to imply, that was my initial feeling after seeing that the merge request template was removed so quickly from the main article. Thanks for your understanding. XinJeisan (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for taking down the merge template. I thought that the quickly developing discussion about the merge was coming to the conclusion that the merge template was not the correct one, that no template was needed to copy one paragraph of text from one article to another. Binksternet (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffee

Here ya go *grin*[2] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mmm-mmm... "Clear and illuminating". Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Henry Edwards photo

File:Henry Edwards.jpg Hi, I have found another verifiably "free" image of Harry (a left-looking portrait). Feel safe to use it as the identifying photo if desired. Jappalang (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! I think I will crop it to get rid of the excess top section. I am a real stickler for headroom (photographic framing) and I keep seeing that 19th century photographers were not so careful about it. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

SACD

Thread moved to Talk:Super Audio CD. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Grado Labs

I have added to the talk page for Grado Labs, if we could please move any more discussion on the topic there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protolink24 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Datchet Bridge

Hi there. Thanks for taking on the GA review of Datchet Bridge - wasn't expecting it so soon but a nice surprise! I've briefly read your comments and will be attending to them ASAP but likely won't have time to do this before Friday - thought I should let you know. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 21:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem—there is no screaming rush. Take your time. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Finger slipping

No worries. Not the first time I've been accused of vandalism. :) Actually, I only glanced at the page because an anon IP that edited it had been making odd edits elsewhere, so I'll leave the content concerns to you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mary Sargeant Gove Nichols

Hi Binksternet. I take your point on the inclusion in the United Sates section of First-wave feminism, of citations for Mary Sargeant Gove Nichols at the end of the lead sentence "on the subjects of abortion, birth control, and overall reproductive rights of women." Looking again at that paragraph, it is more about briefly elaborating on some aspects of Susan B. Anthony's perspective. Sorry about that.

It strikes me that Mary Gove Nichols should get a mention of some sort in the article, lest she be reduced to some sort of one-dimensional caricature by multiple mentions in an article that covers only one aspect of the women's rights movement. A terrible thing to do to a woman at the best of times, least of all to a woman who strove against stereotypes of her day. She is described as a feminist in some writings, and from my perusal of the various wrtings on and about Mary Gove Nichols, there were several facets to her. Silver-Isenstadt states in Shameless: The visionary life of Mary Gove Nichols (pp.1-2) that "Mary's life story reflects the complexity and energy of nineteenth century social reform." She was a woman who reached a point where she said "enough", but whose atypical odyssey meant that she could not be neatly pigeon-holed into "established storylines of progressivism", resulting in neglect by historians (although I did keep stumbling onto her name from other directions). Yet, beginning with her first question of to whom her body belonged,

Mary vigorously and self-consciously confronted issues that remain central to identity and conduct: sex roles, intimacy, parenthood, marriage, the question of human equality, the role of religion, the dangers of isolation, the management of illness, the nature of sex, the pleasure of work, and the route to political and social progress.

From Silver-Isenstadt's work alone, it seems evident that Mary Gove Nichols played a not insignificant part in the womens movement of her day - a conclusion I reached before even finding Silver-Isenstadt's work. It struck me just in the works I cited in relation to her work on health promotion in her day. And those only in passing at that, meaning I wasn't even looking for it. It just stood out. Wotnow (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points all. Stepping back for a survey of the forest, an encyclopedia is a chance to tell the story, so rather than bare uninformative lists of names, we should be telling a story. The story of Gove Nichols as compared to the stories of the other first wave feminists mentioned; what is that equation? How does Gove Nichols measure? If we judge her name worthy of inclusion in a list of other feminists, without leaving other worthies unmentioned, we could also dig to see if the briefest flash of her inspiration could be relayed in such an overview article as First-wave feminism. A few words just to give strangers a hint.

As well, that particular article needs balance, especially between its major sections about UK and USA. If you added two or three UK feminists at the same time as Gove Nichols, she would not be tilting the balance by her inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. I daresay whoever created the for a (future) article on Mary S. Gove Nichols also thought there was potential. However, the person seeing the potential may care, and be motivated to act, but is not always in a position to do justice to that potential. In those cases, red-links can serve as a prompt to someone who cares, is in a position to do something about it, and is motivated to do so.

In the case of Mary S. Gove Nichols*, while I care and am motivated, I don't see myself as being in a position to do justice to the creation and development of an article. By contrast, I was able to do something about the red-link in Hydrotherapy to a non-existent article on Captain R.T. Claridge. (I inserted the link to the 10 Oct 2009 revision as the next revision of 22 Oct shows the link as 'live' even though I created the Claridge article on 29 Oct. In amending the red-link to that by which Claridge called himself, it matched the subsequent article name, so it shows up 'live' once the article is created. The nearest thing to time travel I guess). As I own Claridge's Hydropathy, I realised I could contribute something. But I put if off, as I knew starting an article on Claridge would entail the responsibility of developing it, and apart from the time investment, I wasn't sure I could do justice to it. Eventually I suspected I could, and gave it a shot, which led to me learning far more about Claridge than I anticipated (and I've now done justice to the deceased person who first prompted me to seek out works by Claridge and others, sparking a long research and study journey that led to unexpected places). The point here is that I eventually suspected I could pull off the Claridge article, with or without help, for a number of reasons, including not just knowledge about him and related areas, but also, my then potential to be able to stick with the article long enough to develop it.

I would not say the same thing about Mary Gove Nichols article. Firstly, at this point in my history, there is no guarantee of how long I could stick with it as a sole or primary editor. Secondly, and more importantly, I think that such an article is best created and developed by a team of editors. Especially people already familiar with the general subject areas. To this end, I have attempted to bring the case to the attention of a wide enough audience to give the creation of such an article a chance of happening (the Free love and First-wave feminism articles both having high viewerships), and provided easily enough material to facilitate the creation of an article that can survive (e.g. notablilty, verifibability, sufficient body of information to draw upon). I could at least do that, so I have.

And of course, creation and development of a Mary Gove Nichols article could clearly generate information to fill gaps in other areas, be it the US or UK. For example, I think Gove Nichols came from, and returned to, the UK. But even apart from that, trans-continental movements cross-pollinate, generating information no matter which direction one comes from (if you look at my contribution history during development of the Claridge article, you see I tacked back and forth across a range of articles, cross-pollinating wherever possible, and contributing where possible regardless of cross-pollination). So now it's a matter of someone seeing and seizing, the opportunity, or pointing such a person in the direction of the information upon which they can capitalise. Wotnow (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you alerted the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism Task Force? Or their parent group, Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies? You might get some traction there, or at least more eyes. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks, I'll do that. I have also found an earlier speculation of mine as I began paying attention to Mary S. Gove's name, and pondering on her significance in a world where it's easier to pass judgement than to work out the message. Wotnow (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added to the discussion pages of the Feminism Task Force and WikiProject Gender Studies. While hopefully useful, I note low viewership for both, mostly in the area of single digits. For WikiProject Gender Studies discussion, this low readership, coupled with the automated archiving of the discussion page after 30 days, means some points of discussion never get to see the light of day. As for example here, where two topics are archived without comment. There are other examples - all one need do is go back and forth using 'previous' and 'next edit' links. This results in inadvertent suppression of discussion, rather than fostering of useful discussion. Logic dictates that one sets the frequency of archiving to match the natural turnover of discussion. So, high frequency archiving for high frequency discussion turnover, and low frequency archiving for low frequency discussion turnover. The upshot is that my attempt to prompt someone, anyone, who both has the ability to and wants to (doesn't have to belong to an interest group) appears to have better prospects of getting more eyes via my first method. But hey, who knows? Wotnow (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I really appreciate your thought, thoroughness and lovely attitude. You have made me feel super positive about GAN now, who knows? may be even enough to write another one. Thanks again, it was a pleasure working with you. Hope to see you around, kind regards, Nancy ^talk 17:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Next article: The troll under Datchet Bridge, a downbeat article about the tragic unemployment of the old troll... ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of articles, perhaps my comments above may be of help. Wotnow (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's OK, the troll took his redundancy money and then almost immediately got a new job under Victoria Bridge, Datchet. Happy ending. :) Will mull your suffragette suggestion & will certainly take you up on your offer if I ever get that far with it. Quite tempted by The General - I like things that have a bonkers element to them & dressing in a cap and epaulettes and riding around on a big white horse fits the bill nicely! Nancy ^talk 09:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your FA

I started making a few copy edits to Edwards. Hope that's OK.Feel free to revert.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've been tracking changes and I intend to give the article my own thorough going-over in several hours when I get the chance. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

FFL - your comments

1. WP:CRITS is not a policy. And, even if it were, it does not in any way proscribe criticism/critique sections. Your selective quotations from that article are drawn solely from the views of a single editor.

2. The FFL article is long, terribly written and disorganized. The Critiques section is a useful and appropriate way to try to get some order to the article, and to direct the reader to a summary of legitimate critiques.

3. We are in discussion on the Talk page about the article's lede, which I haven't touched, and which remains a shambles, thanks largely to your additions. My edits to other sections of the article do not preempt the discussion re the lede. Cloonmore (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your #1: Critiques sections are lazy writing, suitable only because of the patchwork nature of wiki: writing by consensus. It's always best to say the organization believes in blank, because blah blah, but the Society of Opposers says blah blah about blank. This writing style keeps it all together.

Your #2: It is not too long. Its disorganization was harmed by your deleting various paragraphs that don't promote FFL and corralling all the remaining sentences you don't like into a holding pen.

Your #3: The lead was perfectly fine when I got done with it, thank you. The lead section must mirror the whole article by suitably covering everything important as if the rest of the article were left unread (which may well be the case.) When I added a bunch of material to the article, I rewrote the lead to match. When you deleted and corralled, you did not change the lede to match.

What is your goal with this article? Can you state what form you would like it to take? Binksternet (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Feminists for Life. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. You also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Please don't delete a paragraph under discussion simply because you deem it "not useful." The Susan B. Anthony quote at issue is under discussion, and you ought not try to cut off that discussion and impose your will unilaterally.Thank you. Cloonmore (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unilaterally? What do you call your position, upheld as it is by none by you? I will continue to delete that quote unless it is given context. The quote has no relation to FFL's mission, as it is about a long-dead law the nature of which has nothing to do with today. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Feminists for Life. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. You have 3 times today deleted the same paragraph, containing a Susan B. Anthony quote that you find personally offensinve. Please stop. Cloonmore (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not in any way find the quote "personally offensive." The quote is characteristically Anthony, and cheering in its portrayal of her tough bulldog stubbornness to yield an inch to well-meaning male do-gooders. No, the quote is a marvelous one. What I find offensive is FFL's misuse of it, and I intend to prevent it from showing up in the article without context. Why do you insist that it be present when you do not also provide context so that the reader can assess the quote within FFL's mission statement? Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

SACD

Thanks for that! I apologise for butting in - to be honest I assumed the worst when I saw the edits, and didn't even notice there was a concurrent talk-page discussion :P EyeSerene^talk 16:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought this was appropriate.

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For chiming in with nice suggestions and expert viewpoints on Rumours. RB88 (T) 22:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The guy who vandalized your user page

LOL that same guy vandalized my first article, RCA Dimensia. And he only made 4 edits total. What are the chances of that?!? When I went to his talk page and I saw "don't vandalize as you did....to User Binksternet" I was like what? Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, weird. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Jonathan David Brown. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course! This source, the summary of the court case of the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, says specifically that Brown's apartment was raided yielding "personal property indicating membership in the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups." In court, Brown challenged the legality of the raid, not the truth of the indicated memberships. In your edit summary you wrote that the KKK membership was "not verified in citation and not a secondary source anyway." I see it verified in the source, and it was published as well in news reports of the court case, including the Dallas/Fort Worth Heritage newspaper which wrote that "Evidence confiscated from Brown's home included signed membership cards for the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nations, and a picture of Brown saluting a Nazi flag." To me, these look like very strong support for KKK membership, which is why I bothered to put it in the lead section and the article and the category. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the DYK barnstar! — Hunter Kahn 18:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You bet. Hey, it was you who earned it! Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

1953 coup

Hello Binksternet. I will not be back until tuesday to participate in the debate. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

yum yum yum

andyzweb (talk) haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all.

Keep up the good edits and contributions! andyzweb (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmm! I can just smell the wafty goodness. ^_^

Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

NBSPs

Is this happening elsewhere, or is this an isolated incident? I don't want FAC to get involved in the eternal MOS wars :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The nominator says that she has been told a previous nomination would not go forward unless she nbsp'd the thing upside down and sideways, apparently. I don't want to hold up the nom, either, but I don't want people to study the article's format to determine how they will format their own article. I don't want it sitting out there in this shape as an example of the best work Wikipedia is capable of. I also don't want the nominator to feel that future articles need this formatting, and I don't want her pupils taught the same thing. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Does my note on the FAC cover that? Do you know where this was stated before? Once, eons ago (I'd never find it now), we put that to rest on the MOS talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

At her talk page, User_talk:Auntieruth55#Non-breaking_spaces_in_dates, she suggests that the instruction came during the promotion of Unification of Germany. I looked through that article's history and talk archives and failed to find out the source of the stipulation for so many nbsps. I looked through the nominator's talk archives, too, and came up empty. Perhaps the suggestion/stipulation was in project space somewhere, or on another talk page. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, that issue didn't come up on Unification of Germany. OK, I'm going to hope my FAC note covers this; if it doesn't, and it comes up again, would you mind pinging me? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You bet. :-)

Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at Unification of Germany; oh my, I don't know how or why those crept in. And it also has a MASSIVE infobox that is taking over my screen. I haven't changed any settings; does this have something to do with the recent change in default size? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll fix those, too. It's the upright parameter, part of the extended image syntax. Your thumbnail size is probably pretty big relative to default. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Rookie (1990 film)

Hi, thanks for being proactive with the criticism. Although the article didn't make it, those issues you pointed out were corrected. (Or at least I hope I did an adequate job in trying to correct them) But thanks for the advice. I hope the film will make the featured category some time in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.228.96 (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure! It's not an impossible goal, is it? Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

HahhA Haha Haha Hahaha HAh............Well, it might be. I think alot of people viewed this article and really just found one isolated but major problem. Lack of Content!!!.....Specifically in the Response and the Production sections!!! Everything else seems to look pretty good. It has a strong introduction, the Main Image includes the "ALT Text", the Plot section is thorough but not too overly detailed and the format is correct and clean. It has the necessary punctuation in the references, and includes many informative external links. But the lack of content issue is not easy to obtain from a film that was not extremely commercially successful, and by the fact that its 20 years old. To get this film to featured status appears to be what you would call "an impossible goal" if that above issue is not addressed.

(Oh by the way, I slightly expanded the Response Section, but I didn't want to over-do it with negative reviews. The reader gets the point. So maybe that section can stay the way it is. Perhaps just the Production Section needs to be expanded.) 64.115.130.66 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

thanks for your help with Johann von Klenau, which was promoted yesterday. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I just tidied. You did all the heavy lifting! Congratulations on a job well done. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Jay Pritzker Pavilion

	<font=3> Thanks again for your helpful comments and support. Jay Pritzker Pavilion is now a featured article! TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You bet. Congratulations! Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK

I cited the hook. Joe Chill (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK hook for Peter Stevens (pilot)

Thanks for the message. I have managed to scrunch it down to 210, but not sure how else to shorten it without killing the interest of the hook. Thanks.

Thanks

Thanks for the award. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And thanks from me too. Your comment about eccentric buildings immediately made me think back to this one...! Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You're both welcome. The encyclopedia needs the bread-n-butter articles, and it needs the funky ones! Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ranchos

And thanks for your additions, they are always an improvement. Emargie (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A few lend themselves more easily to colorful tales of the past. Other rancho articles may have a colorful story to tell, but I don't see it right away. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the DYK medal

... that was very kind. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 07:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

 :D

Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Important

Hi, why are you changing "more importantly" to "more important"? It makes some sentences read very strangely indeed. DuncanHill (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"More importantly" means with more pomposity or self-importance. "He moved about the office with his chest puffed out, adjusting his trophies importantly." That is when importantly is put to best use. Otherwise, when people say or write more importantly, they mean more important. It is common to hear the mistake, and the mistake has become normal to our ears. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, "He met Fred Bloggs, Joe Styles and John Doe, but more importantly Arnold Layne" is good, clear English saying that his meeting with Layne was more important than those with Bloggs and Styles. DuncanHill (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that you are from America, and this may be an example of a difference between American and British English. DuncanHill (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I gave that aspect some thought, but I am no British English expert. I assure you Americans use "more importantly" quite a lot in speech and writing when they mean to establish a higher degree of importance. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

To take as an example my undoing of your change here [3], the sentence as you had it appears plain wrong to English eyes, the form I reverted to is normal usage. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your correction makes it no more correct than my correction, no matter what "plain wrong" may look like to you. I searched several authorities online, and both usages are said to be correct by two out of three of them. The other 33% say "more importantly" is deprecated. I'll lay off the corrections, but there is no need for you to follow behind, supposedly cleaning up. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "following behind, supposedly cleaning up", I saw what looked to me like an obvious grammatical error being introduced into an aricle on my watchlist, undid it, took a look at your contributions and asked you here why you were doing it. I don't know what authorities you consulted, so cannot comment on them. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Two hours later and I'm seeing my snippy response as regrettable. I must have put my cranky pants on this morning... Sorry for being short with you! Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Henry Edwards (entomologist)

The article name is entomologist, but most of the content is about theatre: biology or media at WP:FA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Biology, please. The man's legacy has more to do with insects than acting, though the acting provided more grist for the publication mills of his day. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks ! (For everything!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Henry Edwards (entomologist).

Mm40 (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award you with this barnstar for your diligence on the Madonna tour article Sticky & Sweet Tour and for coming up with information that others thought didnot exist. Wonderful work and thanks for helping with the GA --Legolas (talk2me) 04:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks for accepting the challenge. ^_^ Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:DeepInsideMioAkiyama

Why are you reverting all my edits?DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please include the references you used to make your changes to the articles. Read WP:RS and WP:CITE for details. The encyclopedia is not the place for personal experience or personal opinion. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I will add references, but please do not just go around reverting my entries. Wouldn't you call that vandalism?DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I will revert additions that push a point of view that is not neutral, and I will revert questionable additions that have no references. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some regarding the AKG-k1000 headphones.

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/akg/k1000_1.html http://www.onheadphones.com/product-reviews/audiophile/akg-k1000-headphones.html http://www.enjoythemusic.com/superioraudio/equipment/0903/akgk1000.htm

Will you please revert the AKG Acoustics page back please...DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You added this bit:

A particularly notable model is the K1000, though it is no longer in production. It had an unconventional design with adjustable driver cages. When fully toed-out the headphone approximated a head worn set of speakers.

First off, you are saying that the K1000 is particularly notable. I see your three reviews but none offer this same opinion. About adjustable headphones, all the ones I know about are adjustable, so the K1000 is hardly "unconventional". You then conclude that the headphones were similar to a head worn set of speakers. I would like to ask you what a "head worn set of speakers" is... None of the reviews say this. In fact, one of them says, "AKG K1000's are clearly not a match for loudspeakers." To me, this appears to contradict your conclusion about them approximating some kind of speakers. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not add the part about "head worn set of speakers" - that was there before I made my edits.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

They are also notable because they were expensive. Also, they are electrostatic, which aren't too common, and you can't buy electrostatic headphones in the united states anymore - epecially since stax are no longer being imported.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Audiophile

Headphones have a left channel and right channel, that's 2 discreet and separate channel. Will you please revert the changes backDeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I have reported you for vandalising.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Binkster, I don't think you have a lot to worry about here. Deep, what you say about two channels has nothing to do with your edit to that article--if I were you I'd drop it, now. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  And another naive note: not all headphones separate channels, mono ones don't. Materialscientist (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Materialscientist, you are missing the point.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

DeeplnsideMioAkiyama, I took your edits out because you made statements that are not universally true. You changed "Audiophiles are also known to use headphones as a high quality output for their music" to "Audiophiles use headphones as a high quality output for their music." How do you know that all audiophiles use headphones? You cannot assume that this is true based on personal experience. You must base the assertion on a reliable source, per WP:RS. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WTF is this, a gang up? I never said all audiophiles use headphones. I said audiophiles use headphones. If I say, "Humans eat chicken", am I stating that "All humans eat chicken?" DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. You would have to say that many or most humans eat chicken. Other statements would not be true. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. You need the word ALL. The other statements do not imply all.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Later in the article, you added the sentence "However, the problem with headphones is that they separate the channels of music, contrary to speakers which allow the audiophile to hear music in each ear from both channels." You are saying that the separation of headphones is a problem, but you have no reliable source to back you up. In fact, if you go searching for such a source, you will find that there are special binaural recordings which rely entirely on the separation supplied by headphones. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, if it means that much to you, keep it.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Any use for this high resolution tho slightly blurry ampguts photo?

File:Inside of a Boss Audio DD3600 Class D mono block amp.jpg 05:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

edit:other than the three appropriate articles I already found. Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not like its use at the top of Low-pass filter, but a smaller version of the image might be useful at the bottom of the page. Your photo does not clarify what a low-pass filter is, it is simply one example how it may be used. The photo was well-placed at Class D amplifier. Binksternet (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Caleb V. Haynes

Hello Binksternet. I have reviewed you DYK nomination and just have a quick question concerning the hook for your latest submission. Kindly Calmer Waters 10:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Binksternet (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you know about this?

Audio Myths Workshop; a 58 minute video of a college discussion; very in depth. October 2009 AES show in NYC. James Johnston. Ethan Winer. Ever get into dither? Does dither really have an audible effect? Mental self gratification? Start at 34:30 or so if you have an opinion on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I attended that session. Pretty cool stuff, eh? Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You were in NYC? Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, for a week last October, for the AES convention. Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Comb filtering

Why did you say that comb filtering would be a problem here? From a couple months ago: File:Homemade studio.JPG

Two loudspeakers sitting next to each other, aimed the same direction, given the same program, will give listeners a sound with severe comb filtering at frequencies related to the distance between similar speaker drivers. For example, if the tweeters are a foot apart, the comb filtering will show up as a big spike at 1130 Hz and at multiples. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Aviation Contest

Hi Binksternet! This note is to inform you that your Aviation Contest submissions page has been archived from the previous round! You are now free to add submissions for this round! Note: This next round will run from January through February, so feel free to update your submission page with work from both months! Thanks, and happy editing! (Note: I will not be watching this space. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Contest discussion page.

Old DYK medal templates

Hi Binksternet, I see you've tagged all the old DYK medal templates with {{Historical|WP:DYKLIST}}, I presume to indicate that they are now obsolete and have been replaced by the new Creation/Expansion and Nomination medals. The problem is that all users displaying these old medals on their user pages using the unsubstituted templates now get an ugly message on top of each medal. Have a look at the pages using the 50 DYK Medal, for example. Is there a way you can stop this happening? A <noinclude>/</noinclude> could be put around {{Historical|WP:DYKLIST}} in the template, but I'm not sure if this will have the effect you want. Another solution of course would be to substitute the templates, without the Historical tag, on the user pages. --Bruce1ee^talk 15:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ach! Terrible! I didn't want to ruin everybody's good looking awards. I may go back to each award and subst it or I may try a universal fix. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I took out the historical templates from the main award pages, but I left them on the documentation pages. It looks like it is working, like it is not messing up people's talk archives. Thanks for the notice! Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks better. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Iran coup

Since we seem to have hit a dead end in reaching consensus, I propose we seek mediation or arbitration of the article. What would the editors who are not satisfied with the lack of any mention of coldwar motivation of the coup (and the lack of any mention of anything that might be considered a criticism of Mosaddegh) in the article think of rewriting the article to our satisfaction on a separate page in preparation for mediation or arbitration of the article? I'm thinking of CasualObserver and Binksternet and maybe some editors who dropped out of the editing recently.

I've started such a rewrite on my talk page but it can be moved to another location if desired. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Count me in as a party to any mediation. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy right now but I will try and start a RfC Monday as the first step in the process. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not an RfC but a proposal for a new lead that once trashed by Kurz and Sky will become the subject of RfC. See what you think. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

SF Meetup #11

In the area? You're invited to
San Francisco Meetup # 11
	Date: Saturday, February 6th, 2010
	Time: 15:00 (3PM)
	Place: WMFoundation offices
prev: Meetup 10 - next: Meetup 12

This is posted to the groups by request. Please sign up on the Invite list for future announcements. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you know this person?

they are nominating a lot of stuff for deletion and creating problems i think. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. A bunch of images that have been uploaded by you and others are worthless. This editor is just cleaning house. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

some images they orphaned then nominated them. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Binksternet! Forum shopping much? Regards, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikistalking much? Sometimes it seems like I fail at everything I do; in fact that's how I got started editing wikipedia in the first place; I thought well might as well waste some time at this loser filed waste of time place. I can't believe I took it so far; that was not meant to happen. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm tired but most likely done

I am usually wrong; sorry for any immaturity along the way and non venerable actions on my part; I realize over 90 percent if not all of everything I've ever done here for the last two years was done so in such a way that it was inconsequential as with many other things I do. If anyone actually looked surly over three quarters of my articles could go and nothing else I've done is significant either; as with arguably any single part of wikipedia alone actually. It's just a lot of time i've wasted is the only thing about it. In the beginning it was just "for fun" and it just was a past time. Tired means that i am tired as from being awake as in maybe I will not be done tomorrow; but probably. Cya Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait; omyfucking god; the reason they all get nominated for deletion is not because they are on wikipedia instead of commons; it's because i have the licenses as 3.0 not public domain or GNU. Well wtf I'll change em all. I don't care about that. You are the one that told me to pick either one; I asked you a long time ago if i should CC them or public domain them. Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll live through this. Buck up! Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Woman's Bible

I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for this to be reviewed at GA. It's a fascinating article, and I'll get to it over the weekend. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No sweat! I'm not going anywhere... no hurry. The article's title is off-putting—apparently, it makes everybody gulp and move on to the next one. ; ^ )

Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not me, I'm a glutton for punishment.:-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm done with the GA review of The Bible now, just a few additional minor points that need clearing up or plausibly refuting. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

crude

File:Center_channel.jpg the image is 10 MP (more than any picture has to be lol 6 is enough) and not poor quality at all; you are having a problem with what's in the picture. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The image is just fine Daniel. Binksternet is just being a biased pain in the ass. Ignore him. Caden ^cool 02:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The image is crude because of its content. It shows an absolutely horrible speaker setup, a terrible example, with two speakers fighting for center channel, and four more struggling to define left and right. Left and right symmetry has been lost with one loudspeaker turned sideways. Jagged scratchy letters have been drawn digitally with a shaky mouse hand on the photo above the loudspeakers. Dust on the camera lens created spots on the image when the flash hit the dead video screen and reflected. Homemade loudspeakers look like they were made from car speakers but with no engineering considerations—they will certainly cause severe comb filtering. This image fails in so many ways, but its main purpose, to show a center channel speaker, has been lost in the decision to put two speakers near the center. Argh! Binksternet (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill Cosby

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bill Cosby. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -Eekerz (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I had noticed. ^_^

Binksternet (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over images by Daniel Christensen

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Caden ^cool 11:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Rancho New Helvetia

On February 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rancho New Helvetia, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Boss picture

How can you not see that the amp is a Boss; it's so obvious! You can read it from afar on the image preview page; yet you were able to decode the book title; which made me really lol; which was way tinnier. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Rancho Little Temecula

On February 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rancho Little Temecula, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, now I have to do more alt text.

Thanks a lot. I used the nice frontal one which is also a shot in the Classic Albums video. Thanks for all the help as well. RB88 (T) 15:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for the acknowledgement and encouragement. I hope I can continue to create and expand articles, as you and many others have. Cheers and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 17:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

DYKSTATS deletion

So sorry about the confusion. DYK Stats originally started as a sandbox page of mine. I was trying only to delete my sandbox page which redirects to DYK stats. This was a mistake which I have now fixed. Cbl62 (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is something but isn't it not original research?

From Boss Audio:

==Credibility==

Boss Audio is one of many audio companies known to inflate their products power ratings or to rate them at unattainable voltages. for example; the OL5KD is a Class D amplifier that they claim to put out 2250 root mean square watts at four ohms. However, it contains four 30 amp fuses, which would limit the amount of power the amp could draw to 1440 watts at 12 volts, the voltage of a car battery, and 1728 watts at 14.4 volts, the voltage of an automobile alternator.

Additionally, assuming that the efficiency of the amp is 80%, that means the theoretical maximum output power would be 1382.4 watts at 14.4 volts input. It can be presumed that the amplifier does not often run at the verge of burning it's fuses which would put the likely RMS wattage at about half of what they claim. To put out the amount of RMS wattage claimed, the amplifier would have to have over 20 volts at the input, a voltage not common in any automobile's electrical system.

Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like original research. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Super tweeters

Didn't realize that page had been made; but I see you edited it and it has no real references; I looked for some and found none until I searched "super tweeter patent" in which case this came up: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7031488/description.html Why does this awesome site usually rank so low as in this case where I had to specifically say "patent" to bring it up? Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a bunch of stuff that doesn't get enough attention from Bing and Google and Yahoo search engines. I've been amazed at how deep I have to look to find patents and audio industry references. Sometimes, the only way is if I already know it's there. :(

Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Racebending

Thanks for the extra set of eyes on the situation! TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Somebody wants to promote a neologism and push a point of view, and that is not what the encyclopedia is for. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Caleb V. Haynes

On February 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caleb V. Haynes, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete boss audio?

It's up for it. the guy who nominated it has edited it in the past but as soon as i asked him a question about it hoping he'd know the answer as a past editor he prod'ed it. I don't care much it it's kept I commented but that's all; I'm sure it prolly should be gone. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it should be kept. The company is notable, no doubt about it. Binksternet (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait; then why the FUCK did the boss audio image get deleted? I explained; that was a BOSS AMP; are you blind; how could you read the blurry book title in the background (that was funny by the way) but not see that the amp said boss on it? Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OH yea, are you aware that this is NOT the boss audio that makes guitar pedals and "pro audio" rack amp stuff; this is the car audio boss. How is it that you say "it's notable, there's no doubt about it?" It is a budget brand ANY one will tell you that. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The image you uploaded was terrible. It deserved deletion for the reasons that I listed at the deletion discussion. The budget brand BOSS is notable, that's all I'm saying about it. The fact that they make cheap stuff doesn't make them less so. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

But you are aware that they are a low end brand, correct? Then do you support undeleting MTX Jackhammer since that was the largest driver available? Fastily deleted it in the beginning of his delete rampage against me. the non-free use image that was on it is what the trigger was. That was a good article. Isn't it possible to restore it just as it was? Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really remember your Jackhammer page. Have you seen my Jackhammer mention at the bottom of the Subwoofer page? It appeared on TV, on a couple of episodes that featured it. It's notable. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

American Dream

this is not an unsourced referance it is in your opinion that this i unsourced, but it is a key and relevant and occuring theme within John Steinbecks Of mice and men. If you care to explain why you believe this is vandalim i would be obliged to recieve this information from you so i do not impeed on the wiki rules, but if you do look at the simple wiki pages they also state that my edit is relevant enough not to be removed by their admins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.90.107 (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

See my response at User_talk:2over0#American Dream. Basically, your low level of English skills, your personal original research and your total lack of references combine to make your contribution useless to the article. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

center channel picture

I put a new picture on it; what do you think of it? Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Good! Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Victrola

It states that it was used until the SEVENTIES on RECORD PLAYERS; the TV is from 1987; that would surprise a lot o people who associate victrola with old upright 77 and 80 RPM players. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

MTX Jackhammer

Let's get that article restored; I can't believe you brought it up on your own prerogative in the subwoofer article; wow; ask Fastily to restore it or at least get me a copy of what it looked like; it was a well developed article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoooooaaaaa!!!!!

Did you add all those loudest/lowest things to the subwoofer article! Wow if you did; the Concept Design 60 inch; you found sources! Remember when I had an article, hmmmmm what was it called; oh yea! Thunder 1000000. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder 1000000 remember all that? MTX jackhammer was actually good; please let's get that back at least. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

!:

Your sources are all forums and threads! The same one's I used and they got deleted because of it! thetechzone.com?!? I used that! It's a blog. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Stanton added suffrage section on her own?

Resolutions, Declaration, grievances

"Between July 16 and July 19, at home on her own writing desk, Elizabeth Cady Stanton added a more radical point to the list of grievances and to the Resolutions: the issue of women's voting rights. To the grievances, she added "He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise."[29]"

I cannot find any references to support the statement adding the point on her own. Note [29] appears only to refer to never permitted". If this is not substantiated, it should be removed.

Charleebraun (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The note about "never" is in addition to the source saying Stanton wrote the woman suffrage grievance and resolution. Judith Wellman, page 193, The road to Seneca Falls: Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the First Woman's Rights Convention. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay WTF

What say you about restoring MTX Jackhammer; since it was better and more than just the section you added and what about your sources on those sections; they are just as bad as mine; they are the SAME one's on the Thunder 1000000 section. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That's your baby, not mine. I'm no administrator—I can't restore a deleted article. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

But you said it's notable. And also the references; fine I'll be the ******* here and revert your edits; don't want to be but.. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is you sourced the SAME BLOGS I referenced that got my article deleted; not MTX Jackhammer I had a couple real sources on that but the Concept Design thing; that was mine too. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I spoke up for keeping your article at its deletion discussion, remember? Maybe somebody's way of thinking is that articles need more substantial sources than subsections in articles. I don't know. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Chaplin GA Review

You are getting this notice as you are a significant contributor to Charlie Chaplin. The WP:Good Article Review of Charlie Chaplin has been put on hold for seven days to allow time for the article to be sourced. Reference sources can be found on the "Find sources" notice on the talkpage. Further comments can be found at Talk:Charlie Chaplin/GA1. Any questions please ping my talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 02:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What I'm asking is

What I'm asking is would you help me; be on my side; for restoring the MTX Jackhammer article? I know you're in bed with Fastily on the last issue but where would you stand here? Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the ORIGINAL AFD on it from WAY before all this Fastily stuff; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MTX_Jackhammer it was nominated soon after I made it and it was KEPT; Fastily deleted the article without even a speedy delete warning; he just deleted it like THAT under "pure spam" even though I had more content in the article on it's high price and other criticism than any praise at all. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

GARs

What's up with your GARs? Have you gotten any more information?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing more to offer Gordon P. Saville. As they say, some articles aren't meant to be GA or FA material. :/

On the other hand, I have just received the book which includes Clinton D. "Casey" Vincent's war diaries and I am working through it. It is not a very long book, so I expect to have page numbers and perhaps additional biographical material added to the article tomorrow. Binksternet (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Vance Haynes

On February 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vance Haynes, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)