User talk:Binksternet


Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

Archives

Reza Shah

Hello, Binksternet; you reverted my edit to the Reza Shah page. I do not understand why. - I had added Mirpanj which was Reza Shah's surname, before he officially changed it to Pahlavi; and - I changed the word "shah" to "king", because this is an English page ... and "shah" in English is "king"/ ummmmmm .... care to explain your undo? Regards, Kamran the Great (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mirpanj (or mir panj) was a military rank created during the reign of Naser al-Din Shah Qajar. Taken from an older term for governor (the governor of Ardabil was called the Mir Panj in the 19th century), the new rank was added to the top of the existing ranks to make the Western equivalent of Lieutenant General—the commander of an army division. In the chaos of the reign of Ahmad Shah Qajar in late 1920, the new prime minister Fathollah Khan Akbar gave Rezā Khan the title Rezā Khan Mir Panj so that with this very high rank, Rezā Khan could take control of Iran's Ghazak Division (an elite military formation now called the Persian Cossack Brigade) and save the country from disintegration in the face of British–Soviet power struggles in the region. Instead, Rezā Khan met with the British and made arrangements with them to accept their assistance so that he could carry out a coup against the Persian government. This he did on February 21, 1921. After some debate in the Majlis he was made the Minister of War, dropping the "Mir Panj" title, confirmed in this position by Ahmad Shah Qajar. By the end of 1922 he had taken over as the head of the government. In 1925 he became Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, founding the Pahlavi dynasty. See Revolutionary Iran and the United States: Low-intensity Conflict in the Persian Gulf, pages 62–63. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thus "Mirpanj" was not a surname. Also, the Persian king of kings is called the shah, just like the Russian emperor is called the tsar. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take my hat off to you, sir. Thanks for the clarification. yours, Kamran the Great (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stormfront

I think it's actually quite an important point that Stormfront doesn't consider itself neo-Nazi or white supremacist or a hate site. You wouldn't know that from reading the intro to the article the way it was written before I edited it. I assume you're against Stormfront. So am I. But that's no reason to elide a rather important point. Look at the intros to the articles for David Duke and Louis Farrakhan, for example. Those intros incorporate the widespread negative allegations against their subjects, without implying that these allegations are somehow beyond dispute. Note that my edit, just like the current intros to those two other articles, does not state that the subject is not in fact white supremacist or neo-Nazi or a hate site. Renren8123 (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support Binksernet's revert. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proper balance is achieved by telling the reader that the group is hateful, supremacist, neo-Nazi, etc. Virtually no objective sources exist which accept the group's own protestations as valid. Your "quite an important point" is presented to the reader deep in the article where it says the characterization as supremacist "is contested by Don Black as an inaccurate description". What we must portray in the article is the "balance" found in the sources which is very strongly tilted against Stormfront. I hold that the balance is so far tilted that the lead section must simply ignore what is essentially a fringe opinion, held only by the few who speak up for Stormfront. Thus we are following WP:NPOV in removing the fringe opinion from having any prominence in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ringo Starr

What's wrong with using Grohl's quote on Ringo Starr when it was published in Uncut magazine (January 2007, issue 116) and I've used that as the source? Rodericksilly (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your initial contribution you followed WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and said the text was from http://www.fooarchive.com/gpb/daveonringo.htm. There at that particular fansite page, the text is not attributed to Uncut magazine, and no date is supplied. If you go up one level to the index of "Grohl's Poor Brain" then you find that the text is attributed to "Uncut, 2006".

When next you brought the text into the article, you said it was from Uncut magazine, the January 2007 issue, but it was the same text as earlier. It's clear that you merely changed the reference, but that you got the text from fooarchive.com.

So I looked around the interwebs and found this page showing the January 2007 copy of Uncut for sale, and it lists "Dave Grohl on Ringo" in the contents. It's clear that Grohl did say something about Ringo in Uncut.

Meanwhile, back at the fansite fooarchive.com, they copied the Uncut text into their website at least by February 5, 2007, so this helps establish the time frame of Grohl's piece in Uncut. However, the fansite said the piece came out in 2006, and this is obviously wrong, so the big question here is how reliable is the fansite for what was printed in Uncut magazine? A secondary concern is the copyright violation that was made by the fansite in taking text from Uncut.

I don't think we can assume the fansite is reliable, and I don't think we can quote Grohl at any length using their text. Instead, we can say that he thinks Starr is a showman, that he influenced a whole English style of drumming, etc. We can summarize for the reader what Grohl thinks, but copying and pasting fansite text into Wikipedia is against WP:RS.

Finally, I think that such huge quotes are not good for the article. A year ago when it achieved Featured Article status, it had only two big quotes, one from Steve Smith, and one from Phil Collins. I don't think our reader is best served by providing more big quotes. They tend to clog up the reading flow. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to copy this to Talk:Ringo Starr because it's not so much about my actions or your actions but of general interest to topic editors. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeb Bush's book

Hello. I appreciate your concerns. I answered on the WP Conservatism page, although my reply is a bit all over the place--sorry about that. Best for you to look at my updated draft and see the changes I made, then look at my reply on the WP. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on Susan B. Anthony Page

Hi, thanks for the heads up on the copyright issue. I think we may be alright because the author's name was given at the beginning of the sentence, and a footnoted citation for the original text was at the end of that sentence. The wikipedia page on close paraphrasing says "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...," together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph." In any case, to remove any doubt, I have again shortened the sentence but this time using more original English. Thanks, AvelliMach1 (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a comparison between your edit and the original versions:

"...if a child was unborn at the time of its father's death, the child could be forcibly taken from the mother at birth and given to a guardian pre-appointed in the father's will." Series of edits by AvelliMach1
"...if a child were still unborn at the father's death, she or he could be forcibly taken from the mother at birth and given to a guardian previously appointed by the father. 1995 book
"... if a child were still unborn at the time of the father’s death, the child could be forcibly taken from the mother at birth and given to a guardian previously appointed by the father..." 1998 journal

This very close paraphrasing would have been okay if we had attributed it explicitly to Derr, as you note above, so the reader knew this was Derr speaking. In this manner it would have "in-text attribution" as required by WP:PARAPHRASE. The construction would be something like "Pro-life feminist researcher Derr said..." Or we could have directly quoted one of the two Derr versions. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whitesnake

Not worth an edit war, but I disagree with you that the Prown book isn't strong enough to use as a cite for Whitesnake being heavy metal, however much I dislike the term. He refers to tracks on Slide It In having "a strong heavy metal flavor"; the Whitesnake album being "what is considered the definitive commercial metal album of the eighties", and calls the band "an emerging metal powerhouse". Isn't that enough? I totally agree with your removal of glam metal and the poor ref. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although on further investigation, Prown seems to call almost all vaguely heavy groups heavy metal with little real analysis of that genre, so I'll leave it up to you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you're saying.

On my first removal, I noticed that the Prown et al book says on page 211 that the songs "Ready an' Willing" and "Fool for Your Loving" "broke through the basic blues-rock formula to touch on heavy metal", and that the song "Ain't Gonna Cry No More" was "raved up to near-metal levels" as it progressed to its conclusion. These statements I understood to be not quite strong enough to assert a heavy metal genre on the band as a whole. I guess I missed the bit about being a "metal powerhouse", which is definitely strong enough.

The Dave Thompson book casually puts Whitesnake in the group of British New Wave of Heavy Metal, so I'm going to restore the genre of heavy metal.

Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cool. These things are always at least a little bit subjective; you could probably find sources for many genres, but the ones we have now ought to be fairly stable. Cheers! Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't care at all about genres if there were not so many genre warriors out there, reverting each other back and forth, for instance one of them pushing glam metal while the other decries glam metal, and so on. The larger trend of additive accretion results in the genre parameter in the infobox eventually bloating with too many genres. It makes me wonder whether the people doing this are obsessive individuals, or whether there are enterprises paying people to put an artist, album or song into a particular genre stream, such that Wikipedia is scraped by bots to determine what songs are selected to be in streaming media. I'm gonna go with obsessive people for now. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. Some bands suffer from genre warriors more than others: Thin Lizzy for example is pretty stable, whereas Black Sabbath is the subject of an awful lot of addition and removal. It's the usual "rock or metal" argument, and then someone adds "doom metal" and then "proto-metal" and "stoner rock" and you think, "Hang on a minute..." It gets ridiculous. I've seen four or five genres on an article about one song! I tend towards your theory of obsessive individuals, having conversed with a few. They usually protest along the lines of "This band is obviously genre X, you only have to listen to it..." However, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if your other theory had a streak of truth in it too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rust

Howdy Bink. I assume you have a busy Wiki-schedule these days, but can you find some spare time to review Rust in Peace, a GA candidate of some buddy of mine? Big super thanks if you're willing to do the review.--Retrohead (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me think about it. I'm on vacation this week, visiting family and going on lots of outings, so probably not right now. I will check back later and see if anybody has started the review. 16:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Maafa 21

So what did you think about including a fact-check of the film's claims under the synopsis, rather than in a separate section? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea, and I want to implement it, but I'm spending time with family near a National Park, and we're going on lots of little outings. It's unlikely I will have time this week. Binksternet (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Level Meter

Im not sure how I went against the rules of adding to Wikipedia. How can I add that information without it being taken down or flagged. Thanks!