User talk:Binksternet/Archive3

Bush's record of service in the Air National Guard

While I do not refute that there is a contravorsy of his service in the Texas Air National Guard, such a statement does not belong in the National Guard of the United States article. While Bush's service record is dubious, he is still listed as serving in the Air National Guard regardless of him fulfilling his obligation. Such a statement does not directly pertain to the National Guard of the United States. Please place such a statement in the George W. Bush article. Neovu79 (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking instead about expanding W's service record in the Guard to be one typical example of many; of a widespread use of Guard service as a way for sons of VIPs to avoid more dangerous front line service. In the same vein, there have been other well-positioned young men who have been given preferential treatment as they fail to live up to their obligations in the Guard. In both of those cases, George W. Bush's service will be very relevant to the article. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree it can be found relevant to an extent, however not to the National Guard of the United States as a whole. For example, what effects the Texas Air National Guard doesn't not always effect the Texas Army National Guard nor does it effect another states Air National Guard. Do you see my point? Neovu79 (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:BraceroProgram.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:BraceroProgram.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 17:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The page actually did specify who created the content, just not in the more recent format you're used to. Anyway, it should be fixed now. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Take that!

Apostrophes are used to show ownership. This is from the article called apostrophe: Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work. Glad you're growing as an editor. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The exception is "its". The word it's means it is, and the word its means belonging to 'it'... Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for 100 McAllister Street

On 26 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 100 McAllister Street, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Victuallers (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pflueger-1936-portrait.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pflueger-1936-portrait.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This orphaned image is sub-par and needs to go away. It's been replaced with a cleaned-up copy. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thiel Audio

Don't you think that Thiel Audio deserves an article? I made it and it got erased, but I have recently been finding good sources on Google news and will remake it. However, and this is the gay part, I think it was create-protected, which is bullshit, so I shall name it "Thiel audio." And home audio. It's just the kind of article that should be allowed to go w/out refs. It's such a broad topic. And yes, their are many other similar topics that exist w/o sources b/c thbey're just kind of.... a given, you know? That's bullshit that it got erased and protected. I think that's what pisses me off the most, over 2 and a half million articles, and home fucking audio is create protected. Laughably gay. Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go against the admins if I were you. The articles got deleted because they weren't put together well. I guess they're looking for you to change from making a ton of lousy articles to making a very few high quality ones. When you're rewriting Thiel, make sure to use mainstream new reports this time, not promotional articles. Binksternet (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Rudy Bozak

Thank you for the refnames! I didn't know how to do that. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure! You're welcome. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Australian experience with 'irradiated' cat feed

Thanks for your assistance; as many instances before! I have been unable to download the press release of the company; I would greatly appreciate if you could send a copy to me. Dieter E (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Clarence W. W. Mayhew

On 29 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clarence W. W. Mayhew, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:First E-3 sentry.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:First E-3 sentry.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC) MilborneOne (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ach, looks like I was mesmerized by the image's appearance on the USAF website, making me think it was an airman who snapped the photo. The USAF is using it "courtesy of Boeing"... Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Distortion

I don't follow you. The hard strumming has nothing to do with the harmonic overtones (which don't match with the logarithmic scale, but with just intonation and therefore create difference tones when multiple strings are attacked, which makes the sound become muddy). The distortion pulls up the harmonic series (music). So a distorted E becomes a multitone consisting of E-E-B-E-G#-B-'D'-E-'F#'-G#. The mentioned G# and the D and F# are unequal values related to the logarithmic G#, D and F# present on in tuning of the other strings.So when you play just one string, for instance in a guitar solo, this doesn't sound 'distorted' but it sound 'naturally enhanced' maybe even 'sweet' in a way and that's why we like this sound so much, not because it's crumbled or something. Besides pulling up the harmonic series it also increases the volume of so called 'formant overtones', mostly present in the attack of the tone which don't have a harmonic relationship with the fundamental tone. Since you mention 'strumming hard' I think you misunderstood my text and thought I was mentioning about those formant tones. I wasn't talking about formant tones, but about harmonic tones which are related to just intervals. Can you folllow me and put the information back? Outdepth (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take another look at what you were trying to say. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Page #s

I notice that you aren't listing the page numbers from Allen's books in the footnote citations at Port Chicago disaster. Were you planning on adding them at a later date? Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! I haven't yet figured out which is the best, most efficient way to footnote with page numbers so you caught me being lazy with this article. Which way do you prefer? Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing it by author and p. # like: Allen, p. 35–36. Lately though, I've been thinking that it's not necessary to use the "p." so the easiest would probably be Allen, 35–36. Also, I think you might consider splitting up some of the larger paragraphs into smaller ones, but other than that and the page numbers I think the article is looking great. Cla68 (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

'Kay, cool. I'll mull it over and decide what to do. Binksternet (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Anon User 67.186.165.199

I think it would be best to try and get a block against 67.186.165.199. I noticed you commented on his page, too, and I'm really getting tired of cleaning up after him and not listening or caring. I've never worked on getting someone blocked, and I only have a few examples. If you could help me get edit examples and would help me in the process, let me know on my talk page. Thanks. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with blocking the IP is that a large number of useful edits come out of that editor in addition to the various vandalisms and text removals. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That may be so, but looking at the past few days in his edit history, it's mostly edits that have been reverted, and many more that still need to be fixed/reverted. I'm keeping an eye on it, and I'm willing to give it a few more days, but at this rate I'm reverting the same edits every day and still getting no explanation for them or a response. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the more enervating aspects of this IP editor is his/her refusal to take part in discussions on Talk pages. :( Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Repetitive word changs

Just so I know, can you elaborate on the "repetitive word choices" I made in the bandwidth article? Thanks.--Jhbdel (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There was already repetition in the two lead paragraphs but your first sentence was the best example: "Bandwidth is the width of the band...". I think it best to try and define a word without using its own roots when possible.

More than simple repetition, your edit changes introduced conceptual problems. Here are your opening paragraphs in bold on the left compared to the pre-existing paragraphs on the right:

Bandwidth is the width of the band of frequencies (often measured in hertz). Therefore, it is the difference between the upper and lower cutoff frequencies of a physical frequency-bearing medium (e.g. copperwire). The cutoff frequencies may be inherent in the medium itself (e.g., copper wire imposes an upper cutoff where RF ends) or they may be injected through the use of a pass-filter (e.g., the filter often seen on a telephone wire used to carry analog voice and DSL).

In computer networking and other digital fields, the term bandwidth is often expressed in bits per second. This is possible because, according to Hartley's law, the digital data rate limit (or channel capacity) of a physical communication link is related to its bandwidth in hertz, sometimes denoted analog bandwidth. Note, in common usage, bandwidth is often misapplied to other characteristics of a channel which are more accurately termed bit rate, throughput, goodput or channel capacity.

Bandwidth is the difference between the upper and lower cutoff frequencies of, for example, a filter, a communication channel, or a signal spectrum, and is typically measured in hertz. In case of a baseband channel or signal, the bandwidth is equal to its upper cutoff frequency. Bandwidth in hertz is a central concept in many fields, including electronics, information theory, radio communications, signal processing, and spectroscopy.

In computer networking and other digital fields, the term bandwidth often refers to a data rate measured in bits per second, for example network throughput. The reason is that according to Hartley's law, the digital data rate limit (or channel capacity) of a physical communication link is related to its bandwidth in hertz, sometimes denoted analog bandwidth. For bandwidth as a computing term, less ambiguous terms are bit rate, throughput, goodput or channel capacity.

Your first sentence says "the band of frequencies" without saying which band or in what circumstance. You immediately follow this undeveloped sentence with the conclusive "therefore" without having proven anything. Adding the part about the medium itself being in some cases a band-limiting filter is information that is more suited for later mention, not in the first paragraph. And why must it be a medium? What about a particular bandwidth of visible light waves in space? Is the vacuum of space a medium? Copperwire should be two words. Listing copper wire as an example immediately limits the scope of the article. These collective problems were why I reverted all of your changes. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I would still like to see some allusion to the fact that a bandwidth is the "width" of a "band". This is obvious to anyone who already knows a little about information theory. However, the initiate (as I was until recently) can initially see "bandwidth" as a word without constituent parts. Thus a def'n which immediately talks about cutoff frequencies without a little more orientation can leave such a reader perplexed. Regards,--Jhbdel (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Horn speakers page

I don't think it is fair to list the Unity style horns as an improvement over other horn types. It is a configuration that has advantages and disadvantages like many other configurations. By not listing all of them, the Unity/Synergy and CoEntrant references read like an advertisement.

It might be more appropriate to list a history of horns. Each kind of horn should be listed, from those used on gramaphones to early theater horns to models used in hifi today, tractrix, LeCleach and others. This would include everything from single driver backhorns to front loaded horn systems, as well as PA horns. One can also mention coaxial, triaxial and multiple-entry horns.

As an introduction to waveguides, the earliest constant directivity horns can be shown along with an explanation of how each works and its strengths and weaknesses. Manta-ray and Biradial horns, then quadratic and oblate spherioidal horns. This would show a series of horn families, and a timeline for each. I think it is a well-rounded listing of the evolution of several configurations and horn types, and is better than singling out one configuration or style of horn.

I realize this is a lot of work, but I think it is the only way that is objective and fair. I would be willing to work with you to develop this document. But please do not simply post the same paragraph and then say I am a "vandal" to take it down. Without listing the other configurations, the "Horn loudspeaker" page on Wikipedia takes a decidedly one-sided slant, at least in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.153.169.28 (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm copying this over to Talk:Horn speaker. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Could you explain your edit here and the subsequent warning you issued? Kuru ^talk 03:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Many apologies! I've reverted the edit. Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem - thanks for the quick correction! Just wanted to make sure I was not missing something... :) Kuru ^talk 03:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR block

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Horn speaker. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Argh! Looks like I did four reverts of the same IP address which was removing sourced, referenced text. The first of those four instances was reverted before the IP editor began taking part in discussion relating to the article's improvement, making me think at the time that that first reversion would not have been part of 3RR. Wrong! At any rate, it looks like I'll be working with the IP editor who says he wants to collaborate in adding further sections to the article, though my gut level take on the situation is that the editor wishes very strongly to permanently remove the exact text he has been repeatedly removing. Gotta love WP! Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A-class review

Once you're back from your block (war wound!):), I believe Port Chicago Disaster is ready to be nominated for A-class review with WP:MILHIST if you'd like to nominate it. Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but no, please... I have more in mind for it, especially in regards to fleshing out more of what happened to the 50 between October 20, 1944 when the defense rested and January 6, 1946 when most of the guys were freed from prison. I also intend to add some info taken from the post-disaster Navy hearings which detail how the enlisted men assigned to Port Chicago were generally among the bottom of their class in various ways. Author Robert Allen isn't very keen on that angle but it's part of historiography--it's laid down in Navy documents. The officers, too, might get painted with that brush. Anyway, I'm still working on it, though I'll be taking the next few days off for family. Binksternet (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

...and there are more page numbers to locate! Binksternet (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. When you believe it's ready please let me know so that I can help out with the review. Great work so far! Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't forget to ask you to help when I think I'm 99% done. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm kind of busy this week but I'll give the article another once-over as soon as I can. Assuming you'd like to see the article make A-class and then FA I believe you should nominate it since you did the majority of the work. Cla68 (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lil Stress

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lil Stress, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil Stress. Thank you. Wavehunter (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Shoulda been speedily deleted. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:1997 Charles Ives stamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:1997 Charles Ives stamp.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop watching my contributions

I have politely asked you to stop following my contributions. You have joined in discussions and AFDs I've started, nominated pages and templates I created for deletion, ad have acted in a way that appears to be a form of low level Adminitis. Now I will ask you again. Please don't watch my contributions or I might bring the issue to WP:AN.--Ipatrol (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I chose to keep an occasional eye on your contributions back on September 18, 2008 when you deleted an image from the Disc jockey article and added a censor tag. I felt then that your contributions were likely to go against the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTCENSORED. Every once in a while I take another look at your contributions and I largely leave them alone. I have no intention of pestering you; my only concern is the quality of the encyclopedia.

You and others have accused me of this before--my responses have been the same for each.

• User_talk:Binksternet/Archive2#Wikistalking - complaint by User:Ww
• User_talk:Binksternet/Archive2#wikistalking_2 - complaint by User:Sennen goroshi
• User_talk:Binksternet/Archive2#Your_wikistalking_is_not_appreciated - complaint by User:Ipatrol

I still feel that I am in the right in lightly keeping tabs on editors that have a history of adding text which is against policy. If you feel differently, you are welcome to file a notice asking for a review by admins. I'm confident my actions will be seen as suited to the situation. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Binksternet, it is very difficult to confidantly contribute to Wikipedia when I'm being circuled by a vulture as if I were some common vandal. The first of Raul's laws is that mutipule annoying and/or tendentious editors can wear down on a contributor, leading to reduced editing or quitting. Your actions also smack of a lack of an assumption of good faith. Now I ask again for you to allow me to edit in peace. Thank you.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If by "edit in peace" you mean edit happily and confidently then yes, I am allowing you to edit in peace, the same as I've always done, the same as you've always enjoyed. I only correct or revert edits that I believe are wrong or are not helpful to Wikipedia. I would never want a valued editor to quit editing. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If you agree to let me edit in peace than why do you keep following me and joining on every discussion I start or get involved with? I now have rollback too (verify) and you still seem to act as if you were somehow above me. So I ask again to stop following me around. I try to assume you assume I edit in good faith, but your actions have not followed up on that assumption.--Ipatrol (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why you read such conclusions into my actions. I am only interested in making Wikipedia be as good as it can be, and I don't go around making changes to every place you've made changes. I don't have any personal beef with you. If you truly think I'm trying to harass you, file an official complaint. I believe my editing style would be upheld in such a review by uninvolved third parties, and I bet you believe so, too. If you were confident of your position you would have already gone that route. Please stop asking me to cease editing in the way that I feel is right and proper. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Marat-in-Gdynia.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Marat-in-Gdynia.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:1997 Charles Ives stamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:1997 Charles Ives stamp.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment on your Review

If you familiar with any air force unit page that is standardized in its style, you will understand how the page is set up. I don’t agree with the second suggestion because all units that are parent units per se of another unit usually have this sentence within them. The fourth suggestion is part of the grey area that ANG wing pages all have. Most of the writers are unsure if they should write in this portion, and all seem to have done it. Air Force wing pages will occasionally do this. For your fifth suggestion, I can write in how the Air force recognized unit lineage but I’m afraid that someone will tell me to remove it. If you’re for it, then I will write it. Otherwise I agree with your other suggestions and if we could discuss the ones I mentioned, I will be happy to do what can be agreed upon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to say that I only found two uses of the world also within the lead. I'm assuming that our definitions are the same and this lead includes the first two paragraphs of the page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/102nd_Intelligence_Wing where my comments are. Yes, I intended to say that two instances of the word 'also' are too much. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll be right over as I have to find the site where I got a picture of an interception by an F-15. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I did all that I said I would do in regards to your suggestions, minus the comment paragraph issues. I also removed the word also like you suggested.Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Googie

Please contact me or open a discussion on the Googie talk page before reverting my latest edits. You are welcome to convince me by rational argument why the illustration is not relevant to a discussion of the modern use of googie. (If it isn't Googie than what is it?) Thank you, and best wishes, Leonard G. (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe my talk page entry placed there at Talk:Googie architecture 3.5 hours before your note here answers your concerns. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Turntablism

Hi there! What's wrong with the link? [1]----Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 11:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The first thing that is wrong is that the PDF was not used to build the article, so it is not part of the bibliography. Secondly, I took a look at the PDF by Hansen and it appeared to me to be written like a student paper but not as well supplied with footnotes and references as a scholarly paper, nor as entertaining as a newspaper or magazine article. Finally, it contained no more than the Turntablism article would if 'Turntablism' were expanded into Featured Article level. Binksternet (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we use that in any other way. I think it's not that bad and can be useful for readers. At least for me as an only occasional hip hop listener.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole Turntablism article needs more references. Why don't you use Hansen's PDF as reference for some unsourced fact? Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit

Hi! I saw you reverted my edit. The ref. does not support the sentence I removed. Would you please explain your revert? Please take a look at Talk:Comfort women#Image caption too. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The reference looks to me like it supports exactly the text I restored. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please show me which part of which ref. supports the text I removed? Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked the refs before my edit, but could not find anything which supported the text. If you cannot show me the supported part, please revert your edit. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference number 15, the book by Dongguk University professor of women's studies Anyeonseon, ISBN 8987519910. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why the ref. 15 supports and falsely indicated paid employment. The ad specifies the name of job, ianfu and its salary. Could you please explain more? And it would be grateful if you could tell me your opinion on the talk page posts. Oda Mari (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's talk about it on the article talk page. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, continued at the article's talk page. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Insertion loss

I saw that you revert my change due to that you think it is vandalism. I do not think so, I forget only to define $g$ and I agree the link from previous section should be reworded. Link to scattering parameter is fundamental because for some frequencies, only scattering parameters could be directly measured.

Therefore I propose to add the following formulation:

begin here

Insertion Loss ($IL\,$), could be also represented by:

$IL=-10\log _{10}{\frac {\left|S_{21}\right|^{2}}{1-\left|S_{11}\right|^{2}}}\,$ dB.

Since insertion loss is, by definition, a loss (or, negative gain), the leading negative sign is often neglected in microwaves documents like datasheets.

end here

I respectfully disagree about the vandalism stuff. If you read some document of my field, you will get this definition see for instance Pozar. And I made this edit in good faith in order to improve the content of wikipedia and add the link to scattering parameters that is fundamental. Nevertheless I agree I use poor style.

Roucarb (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was mistaken in thinking that an anonymous IP editor was tearing up the maths section--I made this incorrect judgment call after seeing this edit, the second of your two edits. I returned your additions to the page. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you I will try to impove the insertion loss page Roucarb (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Thanks for all reviewing and all your help on the Rififi article. I couldn't have done it without you! :) Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes you could have. ;^) ...I was happy to see all the fantastic improvement in the article and happy to help take it to GA level. You do good work, man. You're welcome. Binksternet (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Magnetic Rag

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work in bringing Magnetic Rag to Good Article status, by doing extra research and significantly improving the article with extra information. Magnetic Rag (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ah, I'm overwhelmed! I'd like to thank my agent, my family, my Creator... Heh heh. ;^)

You are most certainly welcome. I liked your article—it spoke to me and I responded. Thank you for making it so good in the first place! Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Famous People In Oakland

Hey, I see where you're coming from in regards to the famous people in Oakland section, but I don't entirely agree with you. If got rid of things because we were afraid of vandals, we'd have to delete a large portion of the encyclopedia!

Hopefully there's some way we can meet each other halfway. Perhaps having a section not in list form would be more difficult to vandalize while noting all the notable people from Oakland? Spinach Monster (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's already an article called List of people from Oakland, California. I feel that this article is enough. Binksternet (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, works for me. I didn't see that link in the article, if it's not there now, i'll put it in. Spinach Monster (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Marantz HD77

...Marantz HD77 with woofer replaced, radically changing its sonic characteristics. lol. I just noticed that and it made me laugh. It actually sounded pretty good in my vehical with an old MTX amp. The woofer is a cheap Wal-Mart pos and it quit working right, though. I have a video on Youtube of it stil fuctioning after I pretty much physically destroyed it to show how speakers don't really break...totally, that is. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I forgot to sign in. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Musical instrument

Hello, I am resuming work on the History section of musical instrument. I noticed you have helped keep the article clean - are you interested in a collaboration? You could tackle the classification section, or anything else, really. --Laser brain (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Miller discography

Came across your article while patrolling new pages and I thought I'd stop by and say thanks for adding something so wonderfully complete to Wikipedia! §FreeRangeFrog 04:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to say "thanks" but I must note that the wonderfully complete information was taken out of the unwieldy and too-large Glenn Miller article. I didn't write the stuff you are thanking me for. ;^) Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, this patrol stuff is really getting to me! Well, no matter. Thank you for having a cool user page, then :) §FreeRangeFrog 05:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 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) 03:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden in World War II

I can't understand why you undid my change of the death toll. Probably becuase you don't understand German, as anyone who has carefully read the report by the committee of historians commissioned by the city of Dresden will notice that the numbers in the current article are wrong. --85.179.85.211 (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ampex History

I see that you removed my edit regarding Les Paul and his "invention" of the 8 track recorder. The only "history" that he did so was his statement to that effect. One can argue that similarly, the statement that Ampex invented it was made by an engineer with Ampex at the time so what's the difference? But frankly, one must consider the two statements and realistically consider which is more likely to have occurred. Les Paul invented an 8 track machine at his home or Ampex, who was in the business of developing and marketing professional recording equipment, invented the 8 track machine. Given two conflicting statements, one must, unfortunately, make a judgement as to which is the more likely scenario. Where is there any description of the "work" he did to construct an 8 track tape head and the associated electronics in his home shop? There is none. Whereas there is at least a description of the process and associated difficulties according to folks who worked at Ampex. Additionally, there are articles such as this one http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_ampex_selsync/ that detail the fact that, at a minimum, Ampex engineer Ross Snyder, also conceived of an 8 track machine and started the ball rolling to design it.

Les Paul's statement that he invented the machine has passed into "history" simply because people repeated it often enough to make it "true."

At the very least, the article should contain a statement that there is disagreement regarding the invention of the 8 track machine and the "rest of the story" should be available to see that there is disagreement as to what actually happened.

Regards,

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeP996 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky Hiroshima

I appreciate the changes you made to my addition to the debate on Hiroshima bombing. I want to know what you meant by "copyedit" in your comments??Brothers in Arms (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I meant "tweak the wording of" and "tweak the technical format of"... :-) Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gene Hackman, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing. Read WP:PEACOCK. Do not remove any more of my maintenance templates. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your dogged determination is misplaced. The phrase "award-winning" is absolutely not peacock if it is true. There was no need for you to tag those articles, and no need for me to 'resolve' the perceived problem. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You're still failing to see the point. Using "Academy Award-winning" provides no context. Expand the lead to mention which AA, and for which film(s). Not to mention the NPOV issues that arise with lead sentences like that. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Gene Hackman. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. You've already been blocked once for edit-warring. Best not to keep up the trend. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on your Talk page. Your vendetta against the phrase "award-winning" is not appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Dustin_Hoffman_and_Gene_Hackman, though the editor who complained about you didn't see fit to notify you. Let me know if you want to raise this at ANI. Don't edit-war, this can be resolved pretty easily without it. THF (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your commonsensical response to this kerfuffle, THF. :-) Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I like these kind of WP threats..lot of fun. I guess this is the WP culture (policy threats) passed on from old users to new users and from then to new users....Brothers in Arms (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Links

Using the search feature to find potential links to articles is great. I see it led you to greatly expand my article; power handling. I strongly support the existence of red links as they prompt articles to be created as well as they become links when pages are created. I dislike how some people are neurotic over red links because of picky aesthetic reasons. If every potential link were made into a link (esp. for low traffic articles) it would be great. So many orphaned articles would be so no longer. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

PS; what's with this vandalism stuff? Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hypertext

Thanks for your swift assistance with my edit! Rp (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! I just happened by right after your work on the lead, and I saw a thing or two to tweak. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 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) 21:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Adrian Legg

Thanks for improving article! --Boston (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Boy, did it ever need it! There's a lot more to be done, of course. I'm laying off for the day. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of my contribution

You have removed my contribution to the ad Hitlerium talk page, which I consider very unfair censorship. I have given an explanation there and I wish that what I have written is back. If you do not revert it I will, unless you prove what I have written is absolute nonsense as far as the talk page goes. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Your contribution added nothing to the goal of making the article better. Your contribution was a violation of WP:SOAPBOX, and contrary to talk page guidelines. I will delete any further instances of a pushing of a point of view that don't help make the encyclopedia better. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check this out and see the time tag I came here after I wrote the preceding entry. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I will!!!!!!????? 06:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC) That is some statement of authority. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

When I upload images, should I copyright them as some rights reserved or something, because I've just been calling them public domain mostly, but I notice many people choose the 3.0 CC thing. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Do whatever feels right to you. I do public domain because my images aren't so good that they would ever make me any money. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And mine are even shittier, so public domain it is! Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Link to Mormon Studies's MMM piece

BTW have you read THIS one? (Random quote):

Once Mormon leaders learned of the impending arrival of troops they began to use extremely strong anti-Gentile rhetoric in order to stir up war fever and prepare the Saints for a possible lengthy conflict. Instructions were sent out to store food and ammunition and to not sell provisions to Gentile wagon trains passing through the territory. George A. Smith, a high-ranking Mormon leader under Brigham Young was sent to the southern Utah settlements to prepare the Saints and deliver anti-Gentile sermons. This rhetoric, combined with the already-present zeal of the southern Saints created a near-frenzy.

I've studied the MMM some. (M' daddy's cousin and good friend, suuuper-incidentally, was Juanita Brooks, not that that would make me any expert but as an indication of my life-long exposure and, more important, active interest in this historical event.<smiles>) And this link is the best examination of the participants' historical, theological justifications, as based on the belief system then in sway in that place and time, I've ever seen. IMO researchers who find such links as this one -- through first alighting on the Wikipedia link favored by Google and finding it listed in our article's external links -- would be greatly informed by its scholarly research/opinion.

P/s Your original edit rationale was, "Deleting external links that push a POV or don't add more detail to page...." While I have no doubt that some of the external links you snipped (I don't know exactly which ones, though! I'm unable to speed read and carefully consider the detailed and rich sources that were deleted as quickly as perhaps you were) -- while otherwise in themselves quite interesting -- nonetheless might well be unworthy for inclusion per the standard you cite. However, I'm absolutely positive that any number of them add historical documents or scholarly research and are exactly of the type that an internet encyclopedia ought to link to IMO. ↜Just me, here, now … 22:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your personal note. My concerns about the article will be addressed at Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre, not here. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, Binksternet - and thank you for the invitation to join the Wiki group. Your kind remarks are much appreciated. Have done as I was told and added one's name to the list . . . RuthAS (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Lexicon (company)

I made a few preemptive changes and fixes within the article body, but without actually moving it back to the correct name: Could you maybe check that I haven't broken anything? Machina.sapiens (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly keeping an eye on this one. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Bass test

I think the traffic stats constitute some apparent notablility. Daniel Christensen (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say anything getting over 1,000 views is month is somewhat notable. Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for showing me the TOClimit|limit=2 - the P-39 page did not look right - now I know 209.212.28.50 (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

decibels (mosquito)

I linked to the mosquito after being hinted to do so from percussive maintenance. You are quite right, I had, or perhaps still have, a bee in my bonnet and should not have put in the para explaning what dB actually are— I try to be bold. Nevertheless, I think the abbreviation should stand instead of writing "decibels" each time. (And it should be "deciBel").

I would go back and fix this (and lose the para just change the abbreviations) but don't want to get into an edit war. What do you think? It's one of those things that sounds scientific but actually is meaningless out of context. You are quite right that one doesn't want to sit there making a discussion of Bell Laboratories, the logarithmic transform of the inverse square law, etc etc, in this artcle, but simply to use the correct units would be good.

SimonTrew (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no internal capitalization in decibel when it's written out. For The Mosquito article, how about writing out decibels the first time and using the abbreviation dB after that? Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep I am happy with that, will go do it. SimonTrew (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that is just crap. No decent engineer would put a space between units. But if that is Wiki style, fair dinkum. I cleared up some other stuff too. SimonTrew (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's apparently engineering style and English-writing style. I never put the stupid space in until I came here and was shown the rule. :( Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT :) SimonTrew (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

SeeMonterey.com

In the interest of transparency, I do work for the nonprofit, city and county funded organization the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau, which runs the website SeeMonterey.com. (See the footer of our website for info on the cities within the county that fund us.) We are not a commercial entity; we are a non-profit.

I got approval to spend some time making sure all the pages about Monterey County are accurate and updated, because they were a mess. I'm including our links where it seems helpful, and I'm not where it doesn't. (I should add, I often include our pages on things like the state parks pages because we go much further in depth than the CA State Parks pages; we can draw from more sources than they can.) Rednikki (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

About Bonello erased articles

Dear editor: Please let mi know what are your cooments about the way to write again the articles. I take note of adding the definition of Kd (distortion multiplication factor). Please comment it at this page if you prefer. And if you have some complaints about any other article, included MP3, please let me know. In the MP3 case Bonello himself agree with Gabriel and send him to personal mail a lot of articles and newspapers images that demonstrates the the world first " practical working PC audio card" was developed by him. For this reasong the name of Bonello was at MP3 page during almost one year We hope to get the agreement of all the editors and stop the war Regards RodolfoMita

I have been in contact with Bonello—we both are AES members. My understanding about the MP3 article is that Bonello worked on a parallel system but was not involved in developing the MP3 standard. As such, Bonello's contribution belongs at Audio compression (data) but not at MP3. I don't have a problem with accurate and balanced paragraphs about Bonello showing up in Wikipedia articles, I just have a problem with unbalanced and promotional text. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Binksternet: Thank you for your reply. Yes, I agree with you that the work that Bonello and his team did are a parallel path. But still we feel that it is unfair to erase only the Bonellos´work. Please note that "MP3" (like million of Wiki articles) is not a device. It is the name of a new technology. And MP3 has a "History" section. That is the problem. In this section you will find the name of Mayer (at 19th Century), the name of Richard Ehmer (about 1960) that creates the scientific bases of MP3. The same way several names are related to ATRAC or OCF techologies that are not MP3. The work of Bonello (like this other people) is well into the History of MP3 The question again is Why Mayer, Ehemer, etc yes and why not Bonello ? I hope you undesrtand why we feel discriminated. Similar discussion has one year ago Bonello with the editor Gabriel one of the founders of the MP3 article. And finally Gabriel accepts the inclussion in History with the text that Oli erased. Why the name of Bonello was acceptes durin several months and why are not longer accepted after Oli ? Do you have any suggestion to include with some text the Bonello contributios (the first real working audio card !) or to eliminate ALL the History section not directly involved with MP3 ? Regards --RodolfoMita (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Gabriel Bouvigne (talk · contribs) didn't "accept the inclusion"; it's just that he's stopped editing at Wikipedia! (see his edit history...) Oli Filth<sup>(talk|contribs)</sup> 02:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Home Audio== ==ROTFLOL

I recreated it as home adio because it was create protected. It quickly got fixed by an admin. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, be careful with the links

When you undo my revisions where I made Home adio links, make sure they stay links becuase many were not links when I made them home adio links, so undoing my revision will make them "home audio" not "home audio". Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:1936 Thurgood Marshall NAACP.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:1936 Thurgood Marshall NAACP.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you from FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎

WikiThanks

Thank you very much for your positive words in the odd battle over my username. Although I’ve been using Wikipedia for years, and registered with it for a year and half, I’ve been very slow to try to participate in any discussions here, and have really only started over the last few weeks. Your sticking up for me in this matter is most appreciated! FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ 05:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

F'sure, man. Glad to help keep Wikipedia open and enjoyable! Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Medal of Honor - MacArthur

Please discuss this on the talk page. Thanks. To win the Medal of Honor, and facing heavy fire and bombardment, with total disregard for his safety at his age is just remarkable. Can you imagine, he won three DSCs and seven Silver Stars. They don't just give away these medals. Each one makes him a real hero. That is not POV. It is fact. Wallie (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My response is at Talk:Douglas MacArthur. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Port Chicago disaster

Congratulations! Great work on the article. I'm sure that I'm not the only one to appreciate the work you've put into giving the valuable subject the excellent treatement that it merited. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been both a learning experience and a source of personal pride, even though much important work was done by others. Thanks for your good wishes, and for your assistance! Binksternet (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't Bulk out Edit Histories

I sincerely appreciate your industriousness on articles like Lucy Stone, but please coalesce edits together whenever it makes sense. For example, a sequence of small edits to correct typos and punctuation can be coalesced into a single edit. The "Show preview" button is very useful. The reason is that when the edit histories balloon up with a large number of edits it becomes more difficult to untangle them or to see what is actually going on. However, sometimes it is possible to combine too many edits into a single Save. In between, there is a happy medium. Thanks. Hu (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I have complained of this with another editor but never figured somebody would lump me in that category. I'm certainly not trying to inflate my or the article's edit history! Usually I add a thousand or more bytes at a time, like here and here and here. It's just that the Lucy Stone article got slotted in between a run of busy-ness in the the Real World and I adjusted my normal style to suit. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, and I didn't think the inflation was intentional. Just thought I'd mention it. The industriousness is appreciated. Hu (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hearst Castle talk

i answered your question. i dont usually check my watchlist so i rarely answer article talk pages. feel free to leave anything on my talk. - 4twenty42o (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's cool. We'll keep the discussion at Talk:Hearst Castle. Binksternet (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Mach Tuck edits

Thanks for adding the "History" sub-part to the "Mach tuck" page. Actually, yesterday I went to the Mach tuck page to learn more about it. I had a very rudimentary understanding of it, despite having an extensive background both in the cockpit as a pilot and as a lover of aviation and physics/engineering.

I was severly disappointed by the original posting. It was ambiguous, some parts were counter-intuitive, and some of the implied cause-and-effects were just plain wrong. So, I cracked open some old text books, scanned a few discussion boards online, and did my own research until I felt I had a grasp on not only what Mach tuck was but more importantly, why it happens. Until yesterday, I wasn't even a member of wikipedia but felt compelled to edit the old Mach tuck page. I wanted to make it a basic enough explanation so that people without much of an aviation or physics background could be guided through the more advanced topics and hopefully make it more understandable. Thanks for adding the part about the P38. I knew about older WWII fighters having serious Mach tuck problems but didn't know the specifics.

That was the first edit I'd ever made. I noticed you're a member of an aviation sub-group. How do I become a member? I'd love to continue working on aviation-related articles. I have a wealth of knowledge across a broad spectrum of aviation ranging from technical aerodynamic physics, pilotage, aircraft systems, and even FAA regulations. Do you have any ideas of how I can be more useful aside from just browsing and finding mistakes as they come up?

Thanks,

T.J. Figueroa (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you for your excellent and full revision of the Mach tuck article. When I saw that somebody unknown to me had more than doubled the size of the article, I was expecting the worst. It was on my watchlist (I was monitoring it for changes) but very little was going on with it and frankly, I had forgotten about it. What a fantastic reworking and clarification! Your timing was fortuitous for me in that I had just been reading about that exact phenomena in a book about the development and usage of the P-38. I turned around and used the book as my reference in adding that bit of early history.

Because of the post-WWII confusion and loss of technical documents, we don't have much Mach tuck data on the fastest German fighter, the jet-powered Swallow. I wonder what kind of hell they went through trying to get a wing that would ease them past that difficulty...

It's simple to join a wikiproject: just add your name to the member list. Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Members and edit yourself in! Consider this your (unnecessary) formal invitation. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009 Reasons for Vidshow link additions:

Every WIKI page that I have linked to a page on how OLD is it/indexhome.html adds access to a tightly condensed TimeLines of information directly related to the WIKI page. THIS IS NOT SPAM! I resent your labeling this 10 year old public service site with 120 pages including 28,000 dates, names, titles, and places organized into 800 useful TimeLines as spam. I absolutely agree that additions of links to Wikipedia should not alter search engine rankings but the WIKI should be able to be linked to directly related information. I am a good citizen of the WIKI I make it better for everyone whenever I can as you will see from my reorganization of external links for Social Security (United States). Also note the 4 Links pages on hOii.com that cite the research sources used to create hOii - This is a well researched site. Binksternet PLEASE REMOVE YOUR OBJECTIONS and contact me confirm that you approve of my adding links to how OLD is it/indexhome.html. Vidshow (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

inutile

What a great word - I had to go look it up. Now I shall use it wherever I can —G716 <<sup>T</sup>·<sub>C</sub>> 03:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I love obscure words, but spellcheckers typically hate 'em. Binksternet (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Usability Study

Hi. My name is Parul and I am a staff member at the Wikipedia Foundation and we are conducting a Usability test and have created accounts for study participants to use so we can keep track of their interactions on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usability Tester 10 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Gramophone records.

Apologies for upsetting you!

However I must rant, There is no mention in of how the Gramaphone records vinyl or otherwise were "centered" onto a player and why this is neccessary-this a fundemental point re "records"

If you feel my edit to be wrong then it would be more constructive to correct the text or flag it for verification (the images do that any way).

Sections such as "Early History" do not have reliable sources and have not been deleted. This point is already highlighted throuGh out the page and the intro has no references at all - by your staement to me, they should be deleted as well!

The article is already tagged with a multiple issues statement. I have tried to contribute with a fundemental point in the intro to make it more complete.

I wish you luck with removing all unsourced info from Wikipedia!

Thanks for pointing out the Wikiguide lines.--Tunebroker (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is what you added: "A small hole in the central of these discs gave space for a spimndle yo to protrude, allowing the record to rotate without te efects of spin off." Defend that! Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I obviously had typo blindness when I wrote that!

Should have read: A small hole in the center of these discs gave space for a spindle to protrude, allowing the record to rotate without the effects of spin off.

In my opinion the tag should have been orientated to illegibility or mispellings and not vandelism. As I signed the entry there was honest intention, even if the execution was confused.

What do you reckon if I re-enter this as follows: A small hole in the center of these discs gave space for a spindle to protrude, allowing the record to rotate?

Thanks for your comments--Tunebroker (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your addition isn't going to help the article, in my opinion, especially placed in the lead paragraph where you had it. The topic of centering doesn't belong there, as it is only one of a great number of technical characteristics required for accurate playback. The problem of the spindle hole being off-center is addressed in the Vinyl section of the article. Your term "spin off" is, I assume, something about skating, a subject that has no relevance to the spindle. Your sentence is poorly developed—it lacks encyclopedic context—and I recommend you don't re-add it. Binksternet (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of bass test

I returned the notability template. I would like to see some expansion on how the subject of bass test is worthy of an article. I'm sure you'll find some good sources. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really, believe it or not; all you get is downloads and such. But I remain that it gets enough views to say it's notable Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thunder 1000000

just like Thunder 1000000, which was nominated by User:Crotchety Old Man for speedy deletion; the tag was removed and voided by User:SoWhy but crotchety renominated for regular deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thunder_1000000 Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I don't see how I can help. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't necessarily... but you could add a Keep to the deletion nomination page. 74.36.4.67 (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to sign in. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hitman Cloens

What the hell is my page being deleted for it complys with all the rules and is a worth while page. Why is it being deleted why why why.--AKM73 (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it beign deleted stop it now!!!!!!! You thick *()&%^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKM73 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mostly because people think that the article List of characters in the Hitman series is sufficient to cover all the characters. None of the Hitman characters is notable enough outside the game. None are as famous as, say, Lara Croft. Other reasons might be because your English and organizational skills aren't equal to the task of writing an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping Vidshow

Your feedback has really helped me clarify what I am trying to do on the Wiki and on my howOLDisit web site. I have posted replies to the issues you raised and some questions about the Wiki. I would greatly appreciate your responses.Vidshow (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

References/Thunder 1000000/Youth of Britain

How come it's OK that this article, Youth of Britain, has been unreferenced since it's creation in 2004?

Also I might have had a better chance of saving thunder 1000000 if I removed the fact that it's the biggest speaker ever. It didn't have to be to maintain notability. Is A the best letter of the alphabet? Is B? Then why do they all get articles? Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're on your own on that one, man. I have other concerns that I'm tending to. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin S. Kelsey

Looking at your DYK entry for Benjamin S. Kelsey, although your source describes two crashes, the article seems to describe only one crash. Could you make the DYK hook, that there were two crashes, clear in the article? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. You got it! Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Audio articles

Check out this "great" audio article that is a stub, an orphan, is spam, and is an unnotable, admittedly mid-range product. Alpine Type-R. It's been here for years!....Oh we'll just throw a tag on it, sweep it under the rug, someone will improve it. When I see articles like this survive and my article about a woofer driven by an engine capable of 6,000 lbs of force that put out 160 dB with one-half revolution deleted, it's like, "Wow". Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You're complaining to the wrong guy. Sorry your article was fingered for deletion; I guess somebody was going hunting after seeing other works by you. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

External Links

I have placed an external link which I thought was very useful and you removed it saying it was useless. The link is not for commercial gain, simply as an additional resource. I have replaced the link. If you remove it again, please thoroughly explain your reasons backing them up with facts (as per Wikipedia guidelines) as I will escalate this matter if not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceomnia (talk • contribs) 13:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My response is at Talk:Disc jockey. Binksternet (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

All public logs

Is there any way to find out who created a deleted article. Because I remember a BS article someone made a couple years ago at school and I want to find them. I don't know exactly who created it. Why does all public logs show who marked it as patrolled but not who made it? Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha. Thunder 100000 is still getting views because it comes up and appears on the first page of a Google search still. Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Too bad they didn't have a technical paper you could have quoted, or a highly-placed review article. That would have been the savior of the page. Anyway, I'm over it. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know. WTF the guys who made it have a website and it doesn't even mention it. You'd really think there'd be more about it, especially since MTX Audio got to brand it.

But, it was made in 1996 I think so it was before a lot of the stuff on the Internet existed. I mean now it would get a lot more Internet hype... the way things have changed soooo rapidly in the last 10 years is... scary really. Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Articleworthy?

I Get That a Lot

Dean Markley

Can you believe that Dean Markley Strings did not have an article? I was browsing the requested articles just to see if there was anything obvious that might become a good, highly visited article if I made it, and, I saw Dean Markley. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 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) 02:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Benjamin S. Kelsey

On April 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Benjamin S. Kelsey, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What's New

Its all good, I like it, wean others delete my stuff. You made my day. Thank you.--Michael (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Username: Binksternet
• User groups: rollbacker
• First edit: Jul 28, 2007 20:19:03
• Unique articles edited: 4,753
• Average edits per page: 3.78
• Total edits (including deleted): 17,986
• Deleted edits: 110
• Live edits: 17,876

Audio mixing

Thanks I appreciate you posting on my talk. I moved the article to audio mixing (live music) as a concordant of audio mixing (recorded music). The disambiguating term - "live" - is merely an adjective and is not really intelligible as far as I'm concerned. As you astutely noted, it is not all about music, so I have moved it to audio mixing (live audio). Please let me know if you have strong feelings about this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the word 'live' all by itself was less than helpful. Thanks for your move to 'live audio'. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Airplanes and definitive

Seems we are editing all the same airplane articles and agreeing completly on some and fighting on others :)

Could you let me know what "DPM" is I looked in the wikipedia sections and a quick google and couldn't find it.

I believe that the use of definitive throughout the P-38 article doesn't make sense to me in many cases. A certain model can not be "definitive" when many models came out after it or were used at the same time. Nor can you have a definitive Gun configuration if their are other configuration (made up example, 2 guns and 1 camera on recon version).

Let me know what you think.

Be Bold In Edits (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It was me who was wondering what"Dpm" meant. I agree that 'definitive' is extremely subjective and not a useful word in this case. However, we are free to quote expert observers saying something is definitive. Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Entertainer

In re your suggestion of merging that article and The Entertainer (play), I wonder how one would go about this, and who would put it into effect? Tim riley (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I can easily merge it with simple cut and paste editing. Once you're happy that the smaller article no longer has any useful information not covered in the larger article, I'll whack it and turn it into a redirect page. Binksternet (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done the deed and copied all the useful info from the The Entertainer article into the The Entertainer (play) one. Just to make life needlessly complicated there is also an article called The Entertainer (film) which is barely distinguishable with the naked eye from The Entertainer. If you can arrange for all three articles to be subsumed in the The Entertainer (play) one I will send you my personal blessings by return. Tim riley (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay! Will do... Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait! There are now just two articles: One for the play, and one for the film. This is the right way to do it. I have made the article called The Entertainer into a disambiguation page pointing to the other two articles. Best regards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the layout you guys have arrived at. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are my articles all over the place?

My latest articles: "About us" page and Gas jockey. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: B-24 Liberator vandalism accusation

The edit I made (Poonah => Pune) is not vandalism. Poonah is a misspelling of Pune, which is a major city in India. Previous edits from this IP address are vandalism, however, this IP is shared by many people in my organization 12.177.68.254 (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that. I'll try to undo any damage I caused. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:1947logo-UniversalRecordingCorp.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1947logo-UniversalRecordingCorp.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --–Drilnoth (T • C) 13:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing !votes

Um, what happened here? A simple mistake, I hope? –Henning Makholm (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy @#$%! Must've been a double mouse click. Sorry! Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Per Wikipedia policy, you might want to discuss edits before labeling them as "Vandalism." Note that a comment was given for each of my revisions of your undoings.

Please assume good faith.

For that matter, I disagree as to whether Susan B. Anthony and Prudence Crandall were victims of political repression. Being arrested upon attempting to exercise the right to vote, as well as as being prohibited from teaching African Americans by a local ordinance constitute attempts at political repression. Obviously, no repressive measure is identified as one – a little reading between the lines, however, is sufficient to satisfy most when concluding whether a particular action constitutes repression or does not.

Cheers, 32.178.135.202 (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Heywood

Much as I see your point re: Reitman, your revert to Ezra Heywood seems unjustified:

"He was arrested in 1878 for mailing 'obscene material' – literature attacking traditional notions of marriage – at the instigation of postal inspector Anthony Comstock. He was sentenced to two year's hard labor but pardoned after six months by President Hayes in response to massive protests by sympathizers and free speech advocates."

We should note that Heywood was not advocating birth control (like Reitman) or distributing pornography. He was mailing literature attacking traditional notions of marriage, and was prosecuted according to a law defining obscenite material in such a sufficiently broad way to be included as a distributor of it. This seems to constitute political repression more than it does the mere application of draconian legislation.

32.178.135.202 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "reading between the lines" is enough to slap that category down. People breaking an American law, no matter how repressive the law, can't be categorized as "Victims of American political repression" unless you dilute the category to include every single American who lived at the time of that law. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your advice. 32.178.135.202 (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for National Women's Rights Convention

On April 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article National Women's Rights Convention, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Downtown San Bernardino

I'm sorry to disturb you but you deleted my edit in the Dwtn. S.B. Article because it was poorly spelled?, unsourced? I dont know how to source an Article if I could I would....I can give you the link if you want! I am readding so if you want the link please ask because i need some help sourcing article. I would also like to say that it took me along time to find that information, and you deleted it in about one secound, that was rude. You could have had talked to me...and i 'am sorry for the inconvinence. House1090 (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Downtown San Bernardino for my detailed response. Binksternet (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

100

I have officially hit 100 good solid, won't be erased articles. See User:Daniel Christensen#My Articles. Unless someone actually realizes the bullshittedness of like 5 of them. Hahahah lol; please don't look for them. We're cool, right? Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

PS

PS; images from the Rochester wiki http://rocwiki.org/ are okay to use on Wikipedia, right; they are all creative commons it says unless otherwise noted. I'll be shit on if they're not cause i wrote like 5 articles on rochester buildings. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not about to go hunting for your lousy articles, and I have no idea what's gonna happen with the rochester images. Congratulations on your hitting 100, though I'm more of a fan of quality than quantity. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal.  Roger Davies talk 13:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen Symonds Foster

On April 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stephen Symonds Foster, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

P-51

Any particular reason why a couple of rather non-notable looking red-link films should stay? TallNapoleon (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the harm in them. Perhaps they're not so non-notable as to never deserve their own articles. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I'm of the opinion it looks like a violation of WP:TRIVIA. On the other hand it's nowhere near as egregious as some cases I could mention... TallNapoleon (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hotel del Coronado - Thank

Thanks for the bump to a "B" for the Hotel del Coronado article. I really appreciate your input. Ljmajer (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I, too, like the old gal.  :-) Binksternet (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

some idiot

some idiot nominated a subpage for deletion. see User:Daniel Christensen/Dynamat/ Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yves Carbonne

I have answered you here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TLCbass#Adding_Yves_Carbonne_to_articles

Okay. Binksternet (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yucca Flat

Thanks for the info regarding consistency of formatting across several articles - I was unaware. Ed Fitzgerald <sub>t / c</sub> 22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cass Hough

Writing an article about him? If so, good on ya. :-) Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. There isn't much out there about him. He's always been one of those back-room-boy mystery men we've read about in connection with the 8th AF. Turns out to be a mundane story, in a way. He was the grandson of the man who invented the Daisy air rifle! Helped manage the Daisy company until he served in WW II, single handedly curing all the 8th's technical problems and diving every conceivable aircraft past the sound barrier, if you believe all the stories (there's probably one soul who believes he did it in a Cessna :^D), came back to Daisy where he rose to be President and retired in the early 70s. He died in 1990 at 85. His name popped into my head this AM and I had a Paul Harvey moment. "The rest of the story..." and all. Anyway, one website had him in a P-38 in Aug. '42 and I groaned. " Now it's a P-38." (I had always heard it was a P-47). I saw some sort of reference to this in the P-47 article and I thought to pass it along on the P-38 page just to cover that base. It doesn't have to be much, just a statement to the effect that a P-38 couldn't go supersonic if its life depended on it, with a citation to make it "official". Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Butterworth flatness

I agree the anon IP edit you reverted was confused, it might have helped if they had wikilinked monotonic. I have tried rewriting it, but further down the article, I agree that it is going to confuse readers in the lead. Take a look and see if you are cool with that. SpinningSpark 09:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking good. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Disc jockey a musician?

A musician uses an instrument to produce music. A disc jockey uses a machine to combine and reproduce a musicians work. And there by is not a musician. Note: A DJ can be a musician but they are mutually exclusive of each other. 70.219.28.196 (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't accept your thin proof. I'd like to see you quote an expert on that. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Robin Olds

The word is certainly not worth arguing about, but "gaggle" is not perjorative. It's aviator jargon. Nothing pejorative about it, altho I suppose that it can be replaced because it is jargon. --Reedmalloy (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

WP's page about gaggle agrees with you, but Merriam-Webster does not list any respectful or otherwise military usage. I am familiar with the term used as air jargon, but I remember seeing it describing an unorganized, perhaps green, group that is about to become a victim, rather than a flight of actively hostile aircraft that are forming a tactically favorable grouping and are aware of their surroundings. Olds tangled with a formation that fought back, giving him some close shaves. I don't think that his target should be called a gaggle in an encyclopedia, though I can imagine that word being used in a battle yarn. Binksternet (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Haymarket People

Were the anarchists convicted of involvement in the Haymarket bombing Victims of American political repression?
Malik Shabazz keeps quick-adding 'em.
 – 166.203.94.163 (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Victims of American political repression

Thank you for your note. I've responded at Category talk:Victims of American political repression. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Macchi & P-40

Of course I give you time to adjust the contradictory pages but please dont write down that the P-40 was superior to Macchi, even more if you speak of the 202!! I have a lot of quotes even from english books that states that the P-40 could not tackle at all the Macchi 202, not speaking of the Macchi205! If you want I can introduce You to an italian ace, still living, that can tell You how he shot down a P 40 that had bounced him, with many others while he was strafing a british armoured column.... and he was flying the Macchi 200 Saetta, the less powerful of the 3 Macchi!! And how he, still on the Macchi 200 Saetta, was able to leave behind 12 (twelve) P 40 that were pursuing him on the desert, during a reconnaissance sortie!!! I think we must be historically correct not trying to demonstrate that Allied planes were better than the planes of the Axis!! So many ALLIED books state the contrary! hall we speak of the P 38 against Macchi 202 and 205??? !! I was asked so often when I started writing for wikipedia to be neutral and to quote etc. but on the english sites of wikipedia I have the feeling that many contributors just want to demonstrate how good were your planes and nobody stops them but when I put quotes that states that some italians planes performed better, so many people star writing to me to demonstrate that i am wrong! Or Am I wrong? Kind regards gian piero —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs) 18:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Far more important than the hammer is the hand that grips the hammer. The best pilots, the ones with killer instincts in the air, were always able to make the best of their aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, every sentence in an article about a fighter aircraft will have some relation to it. A sentence that says Fighter X was not as good as Fighter Y is fine, but in an article about Fighter X, a sentence that says Fighter Y beat Fighter X and also beat Fighter N, Fighter M, and Fighter L... this is a sentence that is now bringing too much detail, too much about the wrong fighter. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, is a Wikipedia article the place to hammer such issues out? I meantersay that having a paragraph which states that on WW April X Spitfires were shot down in exchange for Y Macchis, when there is material definitively stating that in fact no Spitfires were shot down in exchange for three Macchis? It becomes an excercise in claim and counter-claim; fine for those who love throwing statistics around, but very confusing for the general reader. To mind there is nothing wrong with stating the merits of X v Y, as long as it is kept reasonable. When it comes to quoting facts and figures when these can be contradicted - leave that to more dedicated sites. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, 100%! Thanks for weighing in. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In Britain...

A cotton swab can be known as an ear bud because we clean out our ears with them. I will assume good faith in you, but please study up in future so you don't sound rude or otherwise ignorant.--Editor510 <sup>drop us a line, mate</sup> 20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not worried either way. Thanks for sharing. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Come-outer

On April 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Come-outer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm, abolition

Cheers for this intriguing article. I'm a fan of Garrison's (as you can see here), so I thank you for your fine work. Have a donut. Scartol • Tok 15:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the abolition donut! Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Howard A. Chinn

On April 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Howard A. Chinn, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Authority?

Good Morning I saw that You deleted a quote of mine about Macchi 202, did it disurb you, by chance? May I ask You if somebody gave You the authority to do so? And If I delete your contributs because on my opinion they are too much detailed or not corresponding to truth or balanced? I think You should ask before deleting someone else contribut, wikipedia is not your little field, am I wrong? I put the quote to add some more information about the controversial question P-40-Folgore... so please next time ask, dont be unkind. I would like to know what kind of awards You have to behave in that way... Regards from Roma. gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My response is at the P-40 page. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Audio transcoder

I did not sure I added "promotional material". I just added links to a program that helps people to slove their problems. This is the first, The second please explain me the difference between "wma&ogg freeware to convert WMA to Ogg or Ogg to WMA" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg, and link to Audio Transcoder?! Arslanx (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I took your link out because you were spamming it to a number of articles, and because it appeared to me to be promoting that particular decoder. If you are trying to compare your addition to another one from somebody else, a link that you think is just as valid as the one I deleted, feel free to delete it. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"I took your link out because you were spamming it to a number of articles"... What mean "spamming"??? I added link to this program to articles I decided it is suitable. I can't add some info to may articles at one time ? Bkz you'll deside I spam ?

"and because it appeared to me to be promoting that particular decoder."... The key phrase seems to me here is "appeared" ;) That isn't decoder, that is Audio Converter/CD Ripper/Tag Editor.

"If you are trying to compare your addition to another one from somebody else, a link that you think is just as valid as the one I deleted, feel free to delete it"... I'm not good in English, so it's a bit difficult to me to understand what exactly you mean. I'm not sure I can freely delete links (absolute adequate as for me ) added by somebody,like you. Please revert changes you made, if you feel I wrote "promoting" please edit descriprions so that wasn't "promotional",but please restore them. Arslanx (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take another look at my deletions, keeping your thoughts in mind. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits definitely qualify as spamming and I support Binksternet's deletions:

1. When I see your history, you only came here to Wikipedia to promote that software product. The only thing you keep doing in Wikipedia is putting the link to that product to every article that deals with multimedia, you don't add or change any other content here. This is an unmistakeable sign of spamming. Only spammers do this.
2. You put that link in the external links section. But the section does not serve as a collection of links for software products, it is there for additional information on the article subject. Please see the official Wikipedia guideline to external links, which you clearly violate with your edits.
3. When you put a link to that audio transcoder to the WAV article, for example, it is the only link to a software product there. But why this product? What's so exceptional or relevant about this particular product? There are millions of other audio rippers and transcoders available (and some of them more famous and popular), so why does this product have the privilege of being the only software product of its category that's added in the external links section? Again, only a spammer promoting his/her product thinks that this is fair, sane, reasonable, excusable, normal, desirable or even helpful. This is, again, an unmistakeable sign of the spamming mentality.

So you really have nothing to complain about. Your links don't belong there, they were deleted for a good reason and please don't add them again. Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Bette and Produce

Thanks for the feedback on CB. The Free Produce article looks good on my very cursory glance — I'm afraid I don't have time for an extended review just now. Good luck with it though!

Hiroshima

OK. I will not put this back and risk being "arbitrated". I was just adding a few items for consideration to the WPNZ category. I think that most countries are limiting their scope to very narrow parochial interests. I am trying to "test the water" to see how far to "push out the boat". If it is a good idea, then it stays. If it has gone too far, someone will complain, like you have. I would not contest this, as you have no axe to grind with me. :) Wallie (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

P-38 Lightning

Please don't remove the .79 in units from this or any other page... you're correct: they did referto them as "20 mm cannons", but on Wikipedia, the standard is to list both the standard measure and its reverse unit version (ie 20 mm/.79 in)... Magus732 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with what you call "on Wikipedia, the standard". Metric units are appended to American notation for the benefit of non-American readers. United States customary units are used after metric values for the benefit of American readers. If one group supposedly benefiting from the addition of the foreign unit already uses the foreign unit in their terminology, then no benefit is seen from having both, especially when the unneeded unit is completely unused in language. The US uses millimeters in much of its military weaponry; nobody in the US cares in that case how many inches it is. Same goes in the few non-military metric usages by Americans. Do you see quarts or pints or ounces mentioned in the article Two-liter bottle? Americans say "Two liter", they don't say "sixty-seven-point-six ounces". I intend to change "the standard" until it makes sense. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but when writing it on the bottle, they place both units on it... that's what makes the difference... Magus732 (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you for the most part, at least with respect to needless additions... I was merely following the example of other articles I've seen written that way... Magus732 (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

P-51 External link

I've allowed myself to revert your edit (erasing a link to the website Mustang! on the P-51 page). I do believe you should give it a look before discarding it. I've also thought about adding the MustangsMustangs forum but decided against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corbeaulieu (talk • contribs) 15:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Allowed myself"... that's perfect! ;^)

I took out the link not because I thought the website was bad but because the article is not there to list all Mustang websites. See WP:NOTLINK. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. Your point makes sense, but then why leave some P-51 websites (some of limited or highly specialized scope, and some apparently not working) and not this one? Also, about other links that are challenged by other users, you say you wouldn't remove them because you "didn't see the harm in them. Perhaps they're not so non-notable as to never deserve their own articles."? It seems to me that there are only a few good P-51 websites and that readers should be given links towards these. In any case, I don't intend to dome some edit war or argue endlessly about this, but I am not convinced that removing the link is the appropriate decision and does not seem consistent with the guideline you've indicated, that states that "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corbeaulieu (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Once the decision is made to have only a few external airplane-fan websites (a decision made by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force) then the question of which ones is always relevant. You should try to get some consensus going for your favorite website at Talk:P-51 Mustang. Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Photos at Nevada Test Site

So how do you want me to help by adding my photographs?Johnherrick (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I can teach you how to make the gallery work, but I do not want to see all those photos you uploaded, the ones with a man each one of them. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I trimmed and reworked two of them: IceCap Nuclear Test.jpg and Sedan Crater info2.jpg for you to use as you see fit.Johnherrick (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the foreground in the IceCap is to show the wires which were laid out on the ground which were to follow the explosives down 1600 feet into the earth. The Apple II building was interesting in that they never set the bomb off which was to have blown it away, or at least irradiated it. They even put milk and food into the refrigerator to see how they would fare after the explosion. The sedan crater can be seen in Google Earth by entering "Sedan,NV" in the search. My office is at the control center overlooking "Crater Valley", not far from News Nob and the runway (which has almost been obliterated over the years). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnherrick (talk • contribs) 20:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Steinway

Thanks for providing third opinions on the Steinway page. I placed a notice on the 3RR board today about Fanoftheworld's reversions and he appears to have been blocked for seventy-two hours. Alexrexpvt (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. A little moment of calm achieved by force. o_O. Binksternet (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Thanks for providing third opinions on the Steinway page". Binksternet's opinion is not a relevant third opinion. A little group of users consistently backing each other up has no value and is obviously not third opinions - their comments just look like third opinions. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your peevish comment has no merit. Alexrexpvt and I did not communicate at all until I came to the Steinway & Sons page to leave my 3rd opinion. Binksternet (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is difficult for me to understand. "Alexrexpvt didn't ask for a third opinion because of a little healthy 'give and take'...", said by you in your last comment on Talk:Steinway & Sons#Overly promotional. Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you lend your opinion to the edit dispute currently underway on the Rachmaninoff page between myself and Fanoftheworld?THD3 (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am shaking my head after I have read THD3's last comment, or maybe I am mostly laughing...

But I am good at these discussions. Binksternet, THD3, Karljoos, Madcoverboy and Alexrexpvt have serious problems about the discussions. I must really say that I am so good. 5 users work together against me and even so they can not find good arguments. And I am sure that they watch my edits - and still they can not be on my level. They have to whisper together on their talk pages. Hahahaha... Fanoftheworld (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should tell the administrators about what THD3 says. I don't think his comment above is something that is the Wikipedia worth. And I don't think administrators like his comment and very special way of acting (and that includes some other users also). Fanoftheworld (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't spew out five times the promotional garbage that a normal editor does, you wouldn't need five editors to counteract your work. If you weren't five times more unreasonable... Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"promotional garbage" = Your opinion.

Your comment is not the point. The point is that THD3 want you to "... lend your opinion to the edit dispute currently underway on the Rachmaninoff page between myself and Fanoftheworld". You are just trying to get away from the subject about THD3's (among others) very special acting that I just wrote about above. Fanoftheworld (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get away from anything. You accused me of conspiring with Alexrexpvt to pretend that my opinion was neutral. You accuse THD3 and other editors involved at the Steinway page of whispering together on talk pages. This is a public page; nobody is whispering here. THD3 asks for my help and I will lend it if I feel like it, or refuse, depending on whether I have an opinion on the matter.

You must have hunted through my editing history by now to find out that I had absolutely no interaction with Alexrexpvt or other Steinway editors until I decided, on a whim, to answer a third opinion request. My own third opinion request had just been posted, for another article, and I felt like I should do my part to ease the workload. I picked up a few third opinion requests as a courtesy to balance getting my own answered. I had no idea this one would consume so much bandwidth! Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Victims of political repression

This is to notify you that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21#Victims_of_political_repression, which you participated in, reached no consensus to delete, but has been relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression in order to determine if consensus can be reached on other alternatives. Your further input would be appreciated.--Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

T:PC

Talk:Perfect crime needs you. -Stevertigo 07:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Free produce movement

On May 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Free produce movement, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		In recognition of your patience and dedication while cleaning up Steinway & Sons. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

-)

Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Steinway in Havanna

The largest Steinway I have ever seen is in the Hotel Nacional de Cuba in Havanna, it looked to be almost 20 feet long! Does anyone know the largest one Steinway made?Johnherrick (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice! Was it in tune? ;^) Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, did not have my intellitouch PT-2 tuner with me. The pianist asked (in broken English)the audience what they would like to have him play, then when we asked him to play a Henry Mancini tune he played Beethoven - I do not think he spoke any English other than the phrase "What can I play for you".Johnherrick (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Veganism and the Free produce movement

I have reinstated “Veganism” in the “See also” section of the article on the Free produce movement. Please do not delete it again without discussing on the discussion page. David Olivier (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

John R. Brinkley

A lot of my edits were just copyediting. I think I only inserted one extra fact, and yet your edit summary was "Revert many edits that were unsupported by reference." You don't need a reference to copyedit. I moved some sections around to make them make more sense, and made copyedits like changing which to that and that to which to comport with proper grammar. Was there something specifically that you objected to? Because that can be changed or added back in, but no reason to lose all the copyediting changes in one fell swoop. I've asked on the talk page, if you'd take a minute to explain your revert I'd appreciate it. — e. ripley\<sup>talk</sup> 14:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

El Sobrante

Could you please comment on Talk:El_Sobrante,_California#Notable_residents to say whether or not you agree with my suggestion, which will enable us to put this conversation to bed? Ta, Bigger digger (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My response is there. Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 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) 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Audio CD

I didn't know that "hi-rez" means a world in English, that's the reason for my reverts.David0811 <sup>(Talk)</sup> 22:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is supposed to mean "high resolution". Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Imposter

Wozwoz has been impersonating you and handing out fake warnings with your time stamp placed after it. This can be seen in this revision of my talk page. At first, I assumed you had warned me for a 3RR violation to which I defended myself with a listing of the exceptions to it, but then I checked the history to see if it was a Twinkle edit, I noticed the lack of your username. I also saw one that I didn't see a message from, Wozwoz. Checking his revision, he copied and pasted this warning onto my talk page. I will be reporting him for personal attacks and encourage you to visit his talk page as well. Thanks for your time. The Red╬ 03:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! That's a pretty weak and petty attack by Wozwoz. I'm glad you figured it out before getting hopping mad at me! Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I am going to report him to WP:AIV since he has done this twice and I'm sure he's quite aware of his actions. It's not acceptable. The Red╬ 03:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Buon Giorno, America!

Salve,

I do not agree with your changes about the P40 versus Macchi 202... the Folgore shot down dozens of P-40, and - according to many sources - was widely superior to it... Honestly I think you dont know well the question (I tell you just this: Costantino Petrosellini with a MACCHI 200 was bounced over Alexandria of Egypt by 12 P40 and he went down in a spinn downwards from 4000 meters to ground level and let them behind... noone could even shot a bullet to him... and he was flying tha "Saetta") but they tell me that you have the consensu so... I stop here... Just think that what you write can be read from people looking for balanced infformation as well not only from people that like to read auto-celebration... God Bless America gian piero milanetti --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Super Audio CD

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Super Audio CD. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --> Your recent edits to the Super Audio CD do not seem to have any logic or purpose. Your claims of vandalism appear to be without basis. The page history indicates that you, on the contray, appear to be trying to vandalise the page. Please be aware that your conduct will be referred to an admin if it continues, and your account may be suspended.

Please stop abusing warning or blocking templates

You didn't even sign this warning! You are a sockpuppet account, created solely in response to my editing actions at Super Audio CD. My reversions there are in response to vandalism by you and by others like you, and, as such, are not WP:3RR actions. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Super Audio CD

No worries, you're welcome. I have little patience for attempts to disrupt our productive editors, and it didn't take much digging through the diffs to realise that the complaint against you was complete bollocks. I'm glad I was able to help; if you find the disruption reoccurring with new accounts, feel free to drop me a note. All the best, and thank you for your efforts to keep promotional rubbish and POV out of our encyclopedia ;) EyeSerene<sup>talk</sup> 20:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Just noticed your additional posts on ANI - they seem to be coming out of the woodwork :P EyeSerene<sup>talk</sup> 20:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, it's like Whac-A-Mole out there. Heh heh... Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they're slowing down. Excellent work keeping a cool head and handling the situation. :) I'll try to keep a loose eye on things, but don't be shy asking for more help if you need it. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, what Luna said... EyeSerene<sup>talk</sup> 21:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Brinkley

Wonderful work, thank you for all your time on the early life section; much of that wasn't included in Brock's book (which is the only one I have or have read on the subject). But please, no need to feel like you should back out of the article or anything approaching, collaboration is a great thing. Best — e. ripley\<sup>talk</sup> 03:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How the Hell did this happen?

Look how many views center channel got on a random day in April. http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/Center_channel Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It says it got 1.1 thousand views on the 19th. That's a little more than the average 20 or 30 per day. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

1918 flu pandemic article

Hello. You deleted, without discussion, a link which I put into the 1918 flu pandemic article for NOVA's ScienceNOW.

• "1918 Flu" - PBS NOVA TV program, NOVA scienceNOW, November 21, 2006* "1918 Flu" - PBS NOVA TV program, NOVA scienceNOW, November 21, 2006

You wrote it was a poor link. I checked the link you left in to a Secrets of the Dead PBS show.

The link I put in has more material and a transcript online. I think it would make a good external link for the article.

Please advise. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The NOVA show is news lite; the link brings in two other, completely unrelated, segments on the same video. I don't think the NOVA show contains anything that the flu article would not contain if it were restored to Feature Article status.

I'm deleting the Secrets of the Dead link, too. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your reply. I know ScienceNOW tends to be lighter than a peer-reviewed article in The Lancet, but it did have some prominent scientists interviewed and a transcript of the show. Nevertheless, we'll leave it at that. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Abigail Bush

On May 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abigail Bush, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bombing survey

Are you referring to this edit? (diff) If so, I see two immediate problems. 1. The deleted passage was unattributed and not written from a neutral point of view (e.g. "...the survey's counterfactual conclusion...") 2. The article is split into two distinct sections, Support and Opposition, which means the page could quickly become unbalanced if you start adding rebuttals into one side but not the other. I could very easily add counter views to the top half, too, but because it is meant to describe only supporting views, I see no point in doing so. Not sure who decided to structure the article in this way. The issue was settled before I edited the page for the first time. 22:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My digestion works, grazie!

Ave, Caesar!

I never get the personal habit to write personal opinions here, you should turn your opinions to mister Bill Gunston that looks a little more competent than you... I give you the not translated quote: " Gli inglesi non apprezzarono molto e non riuscirono a sfruttare appieno queso singolare caccia, mentre l'Aviazione americana lo utilizzò largamente. Tutto sommato NONOSTANTE ALCUNI DIFETTI CHE LO RENDEVANO INADATTO AL COMBATTIMENTO AEREO, questo singolare caccia si dimostrò un apparecchio efficiente soprattutto per gli attacchi al suolo". If you read.. let me see, the dyary of Helmut Lipferd that fought in Eastern Front against the P-39 You should know that the P-39 was an easy prey for the Me 109 unless it flew in very big formations... and the Russians used for what it was good; ground attack. One of italian best pilot with 4 years of training died on one of these ungraceful planes, while training...Check your digestion, I heard that you eat some bad food over there... (and have a look to some more books, it is healthy, not onlu for the body"

saluti da Roma! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensensus, again?  :)

So let me understand... if you people there decide to write something that is not supported by an important part of aviation history because you have the consensus, if it so... you write it, and nobody can modify it because is contradictory with what you have written? And you speak of the interest of the reader? The reader wants objective informations and if you put in the top part that the P-39 was an exceptional dogfithers (even with the russians) YOU may mislead the readers! The P 39 was an unhappy plane and YOU know it !! That's why Allied gave it in such big amounts to the Russians that did not care to loose thousands of planes and pilots (you know about some guys like Hartmann, Rall, Lipferd etc., right?)

God bless you.

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Allies didn't like it because they never figured out how to employ it to its fullest. The Soviets did. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Mister? Blinksternet?

( My digestion works, grazie! )

Ave, Caesar!

I never get the personal habit to write personal opinions here, Blinksternet, you should turn your opinions to mister Bill Gunston that looks a little more competent than you... I give you the not translated quote about the P-39: " Gli inglesi non apprezzarono molto e non riuscirono a sfruttare appieno queso singolare caccia, mentre l'Aviazione americana lo utilizzò largamente. Tutto sommato NONOSTANTE ALCUNI DIFETTI CHE LO RENDEVANO INADATTO AL COMBATTIMENTO AEREO, questo singolare caccia si dimostrò un apparecchio efficiente soprattutto per gli attacchi al suolo". If you read.. let me see, the war memories, diary, of Helmut Lipferd that fought in Eastern Front against the P-39 You should know that the P-39 was an easy prey for the Me 109 unless it flew in very big formations... and the Russians overclaimed even more tha Allied, for propaganda purposes... and used this rather ugly plane for what it was good; ground attack. One of italian best pilot with 4 years of training died on one of these ungraceful planes, while training...Check your digestion, I heard that you eat some bad food over there... (and have a look to some more books, it is healthy, not only for the body"

saluti da Roma!--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

^^^Looks like somebody pulled the trigger when the gun was aimed at a different target. Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

P-39? NO, thanks!

Salve... Hei... you have read Saburo Sakai "Kamikaze"? Do you remember about the P-39 in New Guinea? The zeros shot down dozens of P-39 until the allied were forced to retreat it... the point is: if I find some sources that states that the p-39 was not a god dogfighter will you change your opinion? If you wont... how can you decide that the p 39 was good? It is a decision to believe in russian numbers? saluti da Roma, --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Can i add some observations here? P-39 was a very strange aircraft. When it born, the prototype was very fast, even in climbing. But it was 900 kg lighter than the series version. P-39 could had been good enough in air combat, Chuck Yaeger liked it, but he remembered, 'when' one learns how to fly it. P-39 was solid, fast, well armed. But it had some serious vices, for a 18 old boy it was easy to be fatal to ignore them. When used at high levels,against Zero's, P-39 was a no-match. Simply annihiled. But at low levels, as fighter bomber, the engine power (at low levels) was good enough, the aircraft quite responsive. American flyers cannot matched Zero's, but Soviets were operating in a ground support role. This allowed to fly the aircraft at its best, so they effectively scored many victories. Surprised? Not to talk about Buffalo, massacred in Pacific theater, a Spitfire killer when Finnish fought Soviets. Don't ask to me why or how it happened, but it happened. The same for Spitfire vs Zero's: over Australia, in 1943, the Zero's gave the upper hand against Spit Mk V, even 7:1 in air combat. Why, i don't know, maybe nobody knows. Evidently, Zero was not so 'mediocre', but most of the effectiveness in air combat depended by a-pilot, b-tactics c-training d-experience. So no wonder, P-39 was a dead duck in Pacific, but effective in URSS, so V-VS was the main costumer of its successor, P-63 King Cobra, and loved it as well.

So not discard some affermations, only because they 'seems' to be one against the other. It's not if you investigate in the details, so often decisive. The History is full of 'why' and 'how' unsolved, but i see, in wikipedia, 'if' there is the willing to find 'hem, it's possible and done to find a reasonable solution.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Soviets didn't need the P-39 for ground attack; they had the Ilyushin Il-2 flying bathtub for that. They used the P-39 against other aircraft, and many of their aces flew the plane. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You're slighty wrong. Soviets needed every thing they could have in service. P-39s could be unuseful as well as fighter, URSS had x0.000 Lavockhiks and Yaks, after all. The fact that P-39s were used as low-level fighters don't means absolutely they did not use them for ground attack tooas here is stated. Or here [2] in which is said that, even if downplayed their role in favour of 'patriottic' planes, P-63 and P-39s were used as potent asset both in air-to air than air-to ground role, even as good tunk buster.

And in every case, the fact in question was another: mixed experiences doesn't necessarly are in contradiction. On the contrary, simply changing the conditions many things ends differently. So the P-39s: 'unsuitable' for anglo-americans, a lot apreciated (below 10.000 fts) by Soviets. Please note the difference between 10.000 and 20-25.000 fts, that's the reason because P-39s fared so different in battle.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

References

Sorry that i make you lose time... I go to see your modification... I am afraid I did not understand well... last times to avoid problems I just used copy-and-stick (I dont know the translation...) I find the use of wikipedia references and other related things difficult to understand and to use...--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

sORRY let me understand... must I write like in the second case or in the first? The second, right? saluti--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevada Test Site - Apple building photo

Typical Survivability Structure

I have uploaded a photo (see to the right) by DOE of the Apple II building, just thought it would be good to add to the "Destruction and Survivability testing" paragraph of the [[3]]??? Johnherrick (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice photo! Go for it. Binksternet (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It does make a nice addition. ThanksJohnherrick (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it so difficult to work with others?

I wanted to add to the black budget article. I am not an experienced wiki editor like you. I was soliciting opinions on how to proceed. Exactly how things should be changed so I for example don't make the article too pov. There was no reason to delete the entry wholesale and make it so anyone looking at the discussion page would not see it and would not be able to assist me. You could have tried to assist me, instead you undid my change.

One discussion entry in an empty discussion page will not bring down wikipedia. Pardon my french but why do you have to be such a dick? 24.250.10.227 (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You haven't done anything to deserve special treatment. Instead, standard rules apply to you, as they do to all who post here. Binksternet (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I did some reading into Wikipedia Policy. There is also Assume Good Faith, Please do not bite the newcomers, and under Talk Page Guidelines: Be welcoming to newcomers, and under Help:Reverting - Revert wars are considered harmful. I was trying to determine what would be acceptable to add among the things I wanted to add. If you felt I was using the discussion page as a forum you could have said so in a reply comment without reverting my addition to the talk page. You violated several wiki rules yourself with your use of the revert. 24.250.10.227 (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed your talk page entry because it was discussing the topic, not the article. I wrote Removing non-article talk entry. This is not a forum in the edit summary. The second time I removed it, I wrote Removing non-article talk entry. This is not a forum, and there was no question about what to put into the article, or what to take out. How much more hand-holding did you need? I'm not biting the newbie by removing and explaining, all in very straightforward and neutral tone. Biting would be using inflammatory words, like writing something such as "why do you have to be such a dick"... Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article. I specifically was talking about improving the article. I clearly spelled out the things I thought should be added: CIA financing loophole, SAPs that congress has no over site over. I said I did not want to edit the article right away, I figured others might get upset and undo my changes to the article. You did not assume good faith, you were not welcoming, and you did not take into account the consequences of a revert. All these in my eyes are worse than me not formulating questions asking for opinions on what to change in the article exactly as you would have wanted. You ignored the rules when they applied to you and enforced them when you thought they applied to others. Now I just expect any edits I make to the article at this point will be undone by you and that there is no point in me even trying to edit the article. 24.250.10.227 (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You're completely free to edit the article, or propose edits on the Talk page. Nothing that has happened so far has limited you in any way. Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:BusterKeaton-postage-stamp-AlHirschfeld.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:BusterKeaton-postage-stamp-AlHirschfeld.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:1997 Charles Ives stamp.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:1997 Charles Ives stamp.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image which is not under a free license or in the public domain and it has not been used in any article for more than seven days.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning of violation of 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Super Audio CD. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. [[User:Wozwoz|Wozwoz]) 16:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Mosquito and VHF safety studies

The reason for my contribution to the Mosquito page is to highlight the absence of research as to the possible harmful effects on children who are the targets of the device, or babies who may also be exposed to the device. You are correct that there are some adult exposure studies, however the HSE reference I gave is correct and is a review of the relevant research including Parrack (1966) which it discusses. It was published in 2001. Here is a quote from the summary:

"A number of Damage Risk Criteria and Maximum Permissible Levels were first recommended by individual researchers in the 1960s. These tentative recommendations, supported by limited experimental and survey data, were then taken up by national and international bodies."

"After consideration of the relevant literature on subjective and auditory effects, there seems to have been no significant progress since Damage Risk Criteria and Maximum Permissible Levels were first proposed in the 1960s. As a first step forward, a structured survey of subjective effects, linked to measured band levels, would confirm (or otherwise) the long-established limits for unprotected ears, and establish the prevalence of adverse subjective effects. A doseresponse relation might follow. It is too early to think of a dose-response relation for hearing injury. A census is needed to determine how many ultrasonic tools are in use throughout UK industry, and how many workers are exposed to potentially harmful acoustic output from these devices? Once the population at risk has been quantified, paths for future research may be opened."

M.pois --M.pois (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by M.pois (talk • contribs) 10:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The linked report and its summary don't talk about the hearing of minors. It talks about workers and occupational hazards. You are synthesizing a position with regard to the lack of safe audio level studies applied to children and teenagers. Synthesis of source material is described and deprecated at this Wikipedia guide: WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I appreciate it, it is an interesting point about synthesis of A B then C in the link you give. At what point of separation of A and B is the implication that A and B means C considered to be in the mind of the reader as opposed to stated explicitly? The concern with synthesis or original research seems to be that the synthesis may not be justified and wikipedia is not able to judge this, and if that is so, then not saying C would be OK, but if that synthesis is implicit rather than explicit where are the limits? In other words relating to this particular page, if the article says something like:" the device relies on adult data (ref); adult data is inadequate (ref2); the device is targeted at children (ref3)", then this is a list of facts but presenting them in this order and in the health section clearly implies that the device has not been safely assessed wrt to it's target population, which it hasn't but that is a synthesis if I've understood this correctly, and it would need an external reference to a trusted source that stated this. If this were still considered synthesis what if wikipedia had a page on guidelines for human exposure to VHF that listed ref2 (as well as other stuff naturally) and was linked within a statement that said "The device relies on adult data (ref)" , and the third statement was in a different section, then the synthesis would be less explicit. So is it the case that explicit synthesis breaks the rules but implicit synthesis is OK or is there more subtlety to this?

So how about:

"In a survey of the relevant studies of adults exposed to VHF in an occupational context for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the UK in 2001, it was concluded that the studies were scant and inadequate to establish guidelines for safe exposure It is on adult occupational guidelines that the manufacturers rely, to justify the safety of the Mosquito Although the manufacturer's website reproduces a report by The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) regarding the exposure of children to the device, this relies on the adult exposure guidelines."

What do you think? Also if you know of studies as to the health effects of comparable VHF exposure on children or babies then please let me know as I would like to read them.

M.pois (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This new paragraph is useful. I'll insert it. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. What we do here at Wikipedia is lead the reader to do his or her own synthesis. The leading of the reader is arguably its own form of synthesis, but it is allowed in cases like this when each sentence is well-buttressed with a source. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for helping me re wikipedia and more importantly for highlighting to others these significant points regarding the unknown safety of this device particularly with regard to the very young. It is vital that there is a public resource for information such as this to counter the misleading claims of the manufacturer. Much appreciated. M.pois (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Guestion

Bink, I was discussing audio converters with someone recently, and we were wondering which DACs (modules or unit) are the top-of-the-line and which are the best bang-for-the-buck (we need better terms I suppose). Wondering if you had any thoughts. Thanks, -Stevertigo 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I work far more often in situations where the best ADC is debated. DACs not so much. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant ADC - I used DAC in the generic "digital audio converter" sense. -Stevertigo 00:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For bullet-proof audio quality and road-ready ruggedness, try http://www.aphex.com/product_finder.htm and http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/ Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

binksternet, how come u reverted my edit?

binksternet, how come u reverted my edit on silent film? i believe my edit was right. because if vocal sound was available in the silent era, nothing would have held the actors back. vocal sound is important to acting because dialogue is partially what makes a screenplay.

There are ages-old traditions of pantomime which don't require sound to tell a story. Silent film actors used classic pantomime to evoke a feeling. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)