User talk:Binksternet/Archive11

100th Infantry Battalion
Hi, You just recently deleted a photo from the 100th infantry battalion because I didnt provide a source. About an hour ago I added a source but it was deleted anyway. I am interning at the Go For Broke National Education Center and have been charged with putting the correct information on pages dealing with Nisei vets. Please tell me what to do so that photos are not deleted from these pages so that everything can run smoothly here on out. I am not one to copyright and would like to do things the right way so this does not happen again. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codycoytote (talk • contribs) 17:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * See my response at Talk:442nd Infantry Regiment (United States). Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony List
I put museum in quotes on the reference because it's not actually a museum, it's a website formed in opposition to the museum. BS24 (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The name of the website publisher is "Susan B. Anthony Museum", no quotes around 'museum'. They are in opposition to the "Susan B. Anthony Birthplace Museum", no quotes there, either. Your addition of scare quotes was something I judged petty, which is why I wrote "Petty." in the edit summary. My opinion has not changed. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Susan B. Anthony List has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You have already been rebuked for using the same wording on the Susan B. Anthony page. Please don't do it again, the article is fair as it is. BS24 (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a formal warning against further edit warring at Susan B. Anthony List. Please use the talk page to discuss removal of cited, neutral text. BS24 (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see this notice on the edit warring admin noticeboard and add comments as needed. BS24 (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to removing the endorsements list, I'm just wondering how it violates WP:NOTADVOCATE? It's totally neutral, it's just a list. I don't see the harm in keeping it there at the bottom of the article. BS24 (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the harm: it forwards the advocacy of SBA List but does not provide encyclopedic information. What the Wikipedia article is is a summary of the organization, not an arm of the organization. We summarize important things about them, not list everything they are concerned with. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi
I hope this is the correct way to do this; I am totally new at making changes to Wikipedia articles and couldn't figure out what was meant by "posting on my Talk page." I assume that this is the way to do it?

Anyway, I was just adding Presonus Studio One Pro to the "Audio Mastering Software" section, as it is a relatively new entry to the scene and includes a powerful mastering suite which really impressed me, especially for a 1.0 release. I didn't understand why my change disappeared as soon as I submitted it and figured it was just something I was doing wrong, so I put it in there again (the last time with a more descriptive title that references the Mastering Suite specifically). I didn't notice the "new message" notice until later. (I didn't even realize that people could send messages back and forth to each other in Wikipedia.)

I don't feel strongly one way or another about having my change in here; just thought I'd add it to be helpful to others reading this. There are some examples of the Studio One Mastering Suite in use on YouTube.

So, do what you wish.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.191.242 (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The article lists gear used at the highest level of audio mastering, not gear used by home studios or anybody not employed solely as a mastering engineer. The Presonus product does not fit the tight definition that has been worked out by previous editors, who came to that decision after all sorts of consumer-level gear was being listed. Binksternet (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is interesting. If you'd ever used the mastering suite in Studio One, I think you would know that it is FAR beyond something like Audacity. Seriously, Audacity? The "highest level of audio mastering?" Uh, no. Studio One's mastering suite is more on par with Sonar's if anything. Your response really leaves me to wonder what this "tight definition" is that the article is supposedly following, because I certainly don't see it. But whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.191.242 (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Pot Calling Kettle
On you sent me a 3RR notice ending with "You have removed the bit about the lack of THX certification for Bose Commercial products three times in one day, four times in two days. You are getting very close to meeting the most lenient 3RR interpretation, which could lead to a block" Yet if you follow your edits you will find So why is the Pot is calling the Kettle black? -- Phoenix (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) 14:43, 27 July 2010
 * 2) 02:38, 29 July 2010
 * 3) 10:11, 29 July 2010
 * 4) 22:29, 29 July 2010


 * Because I am certain of my rectitude; certain that the cited text has every right to be in the article. Your removal of relevant information that makes Bose seem less perfect is against WP:NPOV guidelines. My insertion of such information is what allows the article to drop its old advert template, because it contains information that no advertisement would. Binksternet (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RCA Studio B - Chet Atkins, Bill Porter.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:RCA Studio B - Chet Atkins, Bill Porter.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for going to the trouble of swapping photos in the infobox. I appreciate the effort! Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Article Split
I've asked this question to davtra and windows already but what is the best way to get random objective politically uninvolved users to look into "art student scam" and also determine whether it should be split? Thanks. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the best way is to let somebody else rewrite the alleged DEA espionage parts and make it a new article. Looking at your contributions in general, it seems to me as if you are too deeply involved emotionally, that you are pushing a point of view rather than presenting the facts dispassionately. Your writing reflects this, and it gets under people's skin. If someone else writes the article it may have a better chance surviving AfD. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My edits may seem one sided but they were inserted into an already very unbalanced article that stated that allegations of spying were an "urban myth" without any sort of qualification.

A reliably sourced article about spying allegations was put up for deletion and then transformed into an unrelated article about a chinese tourist trap. When I try to add information to the article, a group of editors get's me blocked. They then say that the article is fine and that "all of the previous sources suggested that the salesmen weren't even Israeli, let alone art students.” This was clearly a direct lie that not just one, but a group of editors supported. From this along with numerous other instances it is understandable that it would be difficult to assume good faith on the part of some of the other editors.

However, I would agree to stop editing the article if a group of random objective politically uninvolved users were selected to write the article. This means that everyone on the articles for deletion page combined with those in current discussion shouldn't be involved in editing the article. The new editors should also include other reliable sources and not just the post of which its article has been stated by the salon.com source to be an fbi plant.

If you and Romac plan to start the new article, I highly recommend that you thoroughly go through all of the sources including the fox special on Israel Spying on U.S that describes the art students. Given these sources, there are no grounds for deletion due to lack of coverage nor the pushing of "urban myths" as all sources, most of which came after the post article point to spying allegations as at the very least inconclusive.


 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/mar/06/internationaleducationnews.highereducation
 * http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_18/ai_84396672/
 * http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20020321021731/http://real-info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html
 * http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html
 * http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243
 * http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07
 * http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/ This article refers to a different situation of Israelis spying on Canada in 2004 that was dismissed, but treats the 1999-2001 allegations of Israeli spying on the U.S. as inconclusive
 * http://www.zeit.de/2002/41/Tuer_an_Tuer_mit_Mohammed_Atta -note: this article is in german, from die zeit, its easy to translate with google or yahoo
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20020321021731/http://real-info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html
 * 20 minute Four Part Fox News Special with Brit Hume and Carl Cameron about Allegations of Israel Spying on the United States

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those. I have a lot on my plate but I may get involved again with the topic. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Bob Dylan in 1978
Binksternet, I've taken your hint and added more material here. I think it would be dangerous to go into more detail about whether Dylan sold his soul in 1978, or his relationships with his backing vocalists (one of whom became his second wife!) because the problem with this Dylan article is such a complex, creative life has to be summarised. And even major albums such as Desire and Blonde on Blonde get short shrift. Thanks Mick gold (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I well understand the need to summarize, and not overwhelm the article with detail. The details you selected were different than ones I would have; your take on it is more from the standpoint of albums released while mine is more from a personal story about Dylan the man. I would have said that he lost a lot of money in his divorce and for other reasons prior to 1978—that the 1978 world tour's purpose was to shake the money tree, which it did quite well. I might have said that he tired of the Vegas-style arrangements partway through and tried to speed up the concerts to finish them more quickly. I definitely would have said that his future wife joined the tour as backup singer.


 * Still, what you put is not wrong, and it adds detail for 1978. Thanks for adding that in there. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * On mature consideration, I mentioned the money . Mick gold (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool! Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Clipping (audio) - Repairing a clipped signal
I don't understand why you removed my specification of the article in "Repairing a clipped signal". The 1989 paper by Donoho and Stark shows recovery guarantees for lost information in time-domain signals if something is known about their frequency-band representation. Concretely, if a signal is clipped, the affected samples can be identified and removed from the signal. Donoho and Stark's results now show that if the unclipped signal is known to be sparse in the frequency domain (e.g., only a small frequency band is occupied), then the signal can be recovered perfectly, i.e., without approximations! A second paper by Abel and Smith from 1991 proof this concept on the basis of audio signals. In this paper, the authors consider oversampled audio signals, which causes the frequency band of speech signals to be sparse. This sparsity in the frequency domain enables the authors to use Donoho and Stark's results to perfectly recover the original signal from the clipped signal. It is therefore not correct to claim that hard-clipped signals cannot be restored. If you want to stick to your modification, I don't care. If, however, you want to have the article as precise as possible. I encourage you to use my version instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.69.185 (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You wrote "If, however, the signal to be recovered is sufficiently sparse in the frequency domain (i.e., the signal consists only of a small number of frequencies), perfect recovery is possible." I don't see the relevance of this to real world applications. How "sparse" are we talking about? Voice signals? Because I considered it an interesting lab achievement, I removed that bit and added the word "complex", to say that complex signals cannot be perfectly recovered. I'm open to including the sparse bit if there is an application. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, If speech signals are highly oversampled and then clipped, there is high chance of perfect recovery (see ). I just wanted to be more precise in a sense that perfect signal-recovery from a clipped signal is indeed possible and not impossible (as it is currently stated in the Wiki article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.69.185 (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I inserted the Donoho and Stark piece, and modified other sentences to fit. See if that works for you. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit! I think it's fine like this.

Link in Fado english page
Hi,

I've submitted a link - www.portaldofado.net - to the page about Fado, but the link is constantly being removed from the links section. I don't understand why is this happening, because the link is in everyone's interest. --87.196.92.121 (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the link is in your interest. The link promotes your website, by saying "All you need to know about Fado. Online radio,videos, online shop and much more..."
 * It is a sales website. Please read Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You are such an idiot.... you wrote "delete unneeded commercial links"... and what about the Fnac links on Wikipédia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fnac Aren't they commercial links? What is your criteria "smart boy"? Above you said:"It´s a sales website"... for your information it is not a sales website, it's a site about fado, featuring news, biographies, reviews, chronicles, videos, forum, online radio, and so on... with a small shop that keeps the site alive, or doensn't Wikipedia need money to stay alive too? A sales website, darling, is FNAC! Special:Contributions/87.196.92.121|87.196.92.121]] (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The small shop that keeps it alive is not the only reason why it does not need to go in the article, but it is a good enough reason. Another problem with the website is that fact that it does not have an English version, yet you are trying to put the link into an English encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, the site has lots of interest issues to everyone who wants to know more about Fado and it's history. Have you thought despite the site is in portuguese people could use google translator? Acting like that, you are putting barriers to knowledge, and that goes in the opposite way to the Wikipedia principles. You know that your reason is stupid and petty, I could mention hundreds of websites with comercial interests listed in Wikipedia like FNAC for example, but you seem to believe that FNAC has solidarity and charity interests only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.92.121 (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your discussion here violates WP:CIVIL—you have been abusive in calling me an idiot and my reason stupid. I will report any further abusive comments from you, resulting in you being blocked. :I have not addressed your FNAC concern because it does not relate. The FNAC article is about a company, but the Fado article is not. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I was a little bit rough with you, I apologize. But still concerning to the Portal do Fado link: The fado.com link at the english page has no information about fado. If you could check the english version of that site, almost all the menu links are completely empty, with no information at all about fado, and now I'm asking: is that usefull to Fado and to all the visitors who are searching relevant information abou fado? Plaese check these links and confirm by yourself: Artists | News/Press |Gallery/Video | Fado Houses, and more... As you can see the information that really matters is not there, we could say that this is "misleading advertising" and a total waste of time pointing visitors to there. This is de link description:"Website featuring biographies, news, videos and music"....ah!...ah! that must be a joke!

At Portal do Fado (http://www.portaldofado.net/eng/) despite the little shop, the information we provide is usefull, quantitative better, and we are working to update it all the time, and provide more information in english. After this, I leave to your consideration, which of the sites is usefull and contributes to the real knowledge about Fado. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.131.153 (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Peninsula Banjo Band
Hi, thank you for your messages regarding my posts. I am currently (right now) preparing the main article about the Peninsula Banjo Band hence why the Wikipedia links were red. It is not my intention to advertise on Wikipedia, I am trying to post factual information. You mention that you removed my entries from [List of banjo players] and [List of jazz festivals] citing it as advertising or promotional. Was this because my Wikipedia article on the band itself has not been published yet? I ask because you have other currently living professional musicians (ex. [Béla Fleck]) and who have articles devoted to their bands. Again with the Jazz Festival entry, its a 38 year old festival and quite famous in the traditional jazz community. I referenced a direct link to the website about the event, was that not appropriate or does this relate back to the original article about the Peninsula Banjo Band not being published yet? Please excuse my amateur efforts and naivete, this is first major effort at Wikipedia editing. Your advice and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Chris Scalhotrod (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I just read your comment regarding [List of banjo players], fair enough. My apologies for changing the focus or intention of your article. Regards, Chris Scalhotrod (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You will want to read the guideline for musical artist notability at Notability (music) to get a sense of whether the Peninsula Banjo Band has gained enough notability to have an article on Wikipedia. One of the articles I wrote about a banjo player was just barely over the line into notability: Peter R. Arnott. Once you have an article written about the band, the band can be listed in relevant lists of bands.


 * Regarding the jazz festival listing, I got the sense that your 38th Annual Peninsula Banjo Band Jubilee was not a festival thrown by festival organizers who are jazz aficionados but a get-together—a party—hosted by one band. I am a university-trained musician working as an engineer in the music industry, and I have lived in the Bay Area with my ear to the ground for 27 of the Jubilee's 38 years, but I have never heard of it. It also appears to be as much a bluegrass thing as it is a pop, swing, ragtime, gay nineties and hot jazz thing. It is not a festival that bills itself as jazz. I don't think it is a jazz festival. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

First, thank you for your comments and advice for creating articles. I will review the sections that you reference. With regard to the Banjo Jubilee jazz festival, and I mean no disrespect to you, but how is your personal experience a deciding factor? I have lived in the Bay Area for over 40 years and been a musician for 33 years in the Bay Area, New Orleans, and Los Angeles, but I bet there are plenty of music related activities that I am unaware of because they do not pertain to my area of interest. Yes, the Banjo Jubilee has festival organizers, and with an attendance of 800-1200 I would counter that it can be classified as more than a get-together—a party—hosted by one band, and Bluegrass is rarely on the program. Its a traditional & early jazz event (dixieland, ragtime, favorites of the 1920's, 30's, etc), I can get you tickets if you'd like. But since you did not likely know this, I can understand your opinion and comment. Within the relative notability of the banjo community, the Peninsula Banjo Band is regarded as one of the top bands. I did a quick scan of the Notability (music) article and I think the band qualifies under these two areas... 6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. 7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Since I'm new to this, I'd appreciate your input. Additional things to consider because I'm not sure how they fit into the guideline of the article, the band has produced four albums/CDs (there were actually LPs at one point) that are sold worldwide, mostly North America and Japan, but also England and Germany. Also, the band has opened for The Preservation Hall Jazz Band, the Duke Ellington Orchestra and also Patti Page and The Captain and Tennille back in the 70's. Then there's been the performances for Jimmy Stewart, President Clinton, and Vice President Gore. Plus the band has been featured on "Evening Magazine" more times than I can remember plus a segment on "Bay Area Backroads". Its not enough to get them into IMDb.com which sucks, but its better than most. What do you think? By the way, Peter Arnott is a nice guy, he's performed at the Banjo Jubilee jazz festivals in the past. I just did an article on Charlie Tagawa. Chris Scalhotrod (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

San Francisco Bay Area
Please review the edits at the San Francico Bay Area article. What should be done next (or last) to stop the chicanery there? Regards, Norcalal (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

SPI
Just a note that a user with whom you appear to be in a dispute has opened this. I don't think anything will come of it, but just a heads-up. TN X Man 13:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, good to know. What a crock! Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If im not mistaking this issue was debated a long time ago on WP....
Hi Bink, after this discussion is done and issue resolved (the use of public forums wont be accepted per current guidelines) Ima gonna wipe out all the materials referenced with these links to forums that violate WP:BLP or whose authors fail to meet WP:N even if a famous engineer (though i might consider to keep those who already have a biography here) ....it'll be a whole lot of reverting (according to you PSW has 150 references already), so are ya gonna support me or oppose me?? Jrod2 (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Each entry must be examined to see who wrote it and what fact it supports, so I cannot make a blanket statement about all entries. I expect that a good number of forum talk entries will be perfectly fine, supporting facts that do not have BLP issues. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, you got it :) Jrod2 (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings
Binkster, Maybe part of what you undid on the Acoustic Spectrogram would be useful and informative for the readers? Specifically the part that describes how to interpret the data:

"The vertical axis represents linear frequency from 0 to 5.5 kHz, and the horizontal axis represents the passage of time (700 milliseconds). SPL is encoded in the color scale with darker colors indicating lower levels."

I'm not sure that the article is improved by the deletion. Would you be ok with me adding this text back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Geek (talk • contribs) 18:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC) --1Geek (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is a summary of the subject, not a textbook or instruction manual. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz at RSN
Hi. Thank you so much for weighing in at that thread. I'm attempting to summarize viewpoints there, since at this stage numbers seem somewhat divided, and I have included your view in my summary. Please read it over at Reliable sources/Noticeboard and speak up if I've misunderstood you or if your opinion has changed. Under the circumstances, I think we need to nail this down, one way or another. :) Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks... responded there. Not Wikihounding but good shepherding of the Wiki. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bobbye Hall
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Does your message on my talk page mean I can claim it as a DYK for me, too? :)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I think so. I ought to have included you in the process at T:TDYK, by putting your name in along with mine, seeing as how you started the article so shortly before I expanded it. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I just spent a few minutes creating a stub because I was surprised she didn't have an article; you did the hard work.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wife acceptance factor
Please do not edit the wife acceptance factor page in order to be politically correct. There is no need for your edit there. There is a reason why it's called a Wife acceptance factor and that is the most common term.

Appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.203.94 (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So you wish to ignore the sources using other terms? Wikipedia does not. The encyclopedia acknowledges notable variations. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have time at the moment to argue this with you but I am right. I don't want to have to go into great detail of you being a politically correct nazi. I know you contribute to wiki a lot and that is great but you've overstepped your mark here. Please don't make this get nasty. I'll respond in full soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.203.94 (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What kind of time is required for you to give your reason? Certainly, your reason was in your mind the three times you removed that paragraph, once two days ago and twice today. I don't think it is unreasonable for you to mention it briefly rather than dance around the subject.
 * Being called a "politically correct nazi" is a violation of Wikipedia's civility guideline and will not be tolerated. Another policy to consider is No personal attacks. Please keep things on an even keel—we're all volunteers here. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your smartmouthed/sarcastic responses. Disabling someones editing rights and abusing power is also against the guidelines. Remember, we are all volunteers here, some are just more PC than others :O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.203.94 (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You have just abused your privilages and it has been screenshotted so that others may correct the situation and penalise you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.203.94 (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooh, I would be so worried except that I have never heard of this dire method of getting "screenshotted". Still looking for a good, logical reason rather than posturing and noise. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Now let me respond properly since I have some time. I don't mean to get up your nose but you've clearly abused your power in disabling my editing rights. I will seek that to be rectified and for yours the penalised as a result.

The article you have used as a source contains no mention of this SAF in question. SAF would be a politically correct term that has no bearing. The term is WAF and it stands that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.203.94 (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have replied to you on my talkpage. 123.243.203.94 (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been fair and compromised on the article so you can feel smug with your over PC attitude. Despite your abuse of power, your attitude and the fact that you have NOT apologised for your actions you still continue to vandalise and edit war. I have left the article in a fair way which mentions this 'SAF' nonsense. Leave it alone or face consequences.123.243.203.94 (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no "smug" and no "PC attitude" going here except what you have projected. You did not leave the article in a fair way at all: you left it bereft of references and useful detail. I cannot imagine what about the article excites you so much that you would go to such great lengths to cut it down, against all proof of popular usage. I expect we will now move the discussion away from this useless back and forth to a wider audience. I will file a WP:3O request to start the ball rolling. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mosquito
Seriously, how is a link to a speed curve for a PR machine and test results for the FB.VI vandalism? Added from the cafe, hence different IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.10.103 (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is content dispute at de Havilland Mosquito, and you have been repeatedly warned, then blocked for edit warring. The vandalism is in the edit warring! I will not comment on content here on my talk page. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Wife acceptance factor. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  ANowlin talk  23:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, you inappropriately warned the user for Vandalism, when, if any warning should have been issued, it should have been for unsourced removal of content. The editor was in good faith attempting to remove material, as was discussed when they came to the IRC channel for help.  Remember, to be exepmpt from 3RR it must be UNDISPUTABLE vandalism.  ANowlin  talk  23:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point! I will be more careful in the future. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I regret to inform you, but the editor intends to report you to AN. He/she is scared out of their mind right now.  It might help if you smoothed things over on their talk page by apologizing, and maybe surrounding your warning with  .   ANowlin  talk  00:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree it will be good for me to strike out my vandal warning. I had forgotten that was an option, as I do it so seldom. Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN/I Discussion Regarding Your Recent Edits
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (See this section.)  ANowlin <font color="#990000">talk  02:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your block below is directly related to this (now archived) thread). Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

rollback
I've removed your rollback privileges for two reasons: If this was only one issue, I would have come here to try to coach you about edit warring or misusing rollback. Given the compound problems, and your recent blocks for edit warring, I've revoked it. Toddst1 (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring on Wife acceptance factor, which you didn't use the tools for, but edit warring is edit warring, and rollbackers can't do that under any circumstance
 * 2) Misuse of rollback


 * At the WP:Rollback page, there is no guideline stating that rollback is removed for any sort of edit warring. Instead, the guideline states "misuse of rollback may cause the feature to be revoked by any administrator." I did not use rollback at wife acceptance factor, and I did not use rollback at the de Havilland Mosquito article you linked to in your second example—in both cases I used Twinkle. I don't think it is an appropriate reaction to take away rollback when it was not employed.


 * As I explained at the AN/I thread you came from, Twinkle can be used to revert in content disputes as long as a suitable edit summary is added. This is a guideline that I was unaware of until yesterday because it was not located at the WP:Twinkle page before then, it was located at the WP:3RR page. I intend to use appropriate edit summaries in my Twinkle reverts from now on, and of course I take full responsibility in my use of Twinkle.


 * Please restore rollback which was incorrectly removed. Binksternet (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's go for a while without any edit wars. Then let's talk about restoring rollback. Of course, you may appeal this at ANI or WP:PERM. Toddst1 (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course there will not be any more edit wars from me. Restoring rollback is another thing altogether, and does not require you to watch me first, unless you are reading some guideline that I have not found. Do you really want to see this at AN/I? I would enjoy building a wiki where an admin's decision to remove a user's rights is supported by a clearly stated guideline rather than determined ad hoc. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * sadly this user has continued to edit war and I am choosing to report this user. if you have encountered any issues please contact myself as well as the wiki staff. 123.243.203.94 (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle
Greetings. This message is in response to your comment in AN/I about the lack of functionality in twinkle. Twinkle does have the ability to mark reversions as non-vandalism, seen. I can see in your edit history that you have used these functions in 2008 and 2009, with your last good faith rollback on February 2, 2009. Since then, everything has been marked as vandal. You might wish to look into your settings, or seek help at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle, if the other options are no longer showing for you; as you appear to be experiencing some sort of bug. Cheers. Akerans (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No bug, just blind habit taking over—I was seeing only the red VANDAL link after doing so many of those, and I was not associating the green AGF rollback link with Twinkle. I thought that link was plain old rollback. Thanks for helping me re-examine my habits! Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Memorex
Please don't remove content because you feel it's not worthy of a mention, like you have done on multiple occasions with Memorex. Wikipedia is not limited like text books, and such petty removal halts future progess in articles. 92.0.250.99 (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * At Talk:Memorex you'll see my answer regarding "In popular culture" content and sourcing. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war&#32;at Memorex and continuing problems surfaced in this (now archived) thread. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ADRaudio
Hi, sorry but I've removed a section of the history referring to the engineer who was oferred n' accepted the gig as distributor in NA here and was referenced by that forum. I did it 'cause a) too much talk 'bout that guy...b) content read like advertisement....c) WP is not a collection of short stories...d) the reference is a forum. If ya disagree, ya know what to do at the noticeboard. Oh, I also deleted the refs to ProsoundNews 'cause the link was 404. Hint: I wouldnt be oppossed if you wrote that Prescott guy back in with his title and reference to the contact page at ADR, but if you wanna go further than that or add the forum link back, ya are gonna have to do what i mentioned...Thx!! Peace. Jrod2 (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trimming that. I don't have a problem with your version. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thx also for agreeing ;)....that said, ya know Ima gonna go thru many of these forums links so ya can either see what i do on a case by case basis or ya might as well take PSW to the noticeboard now to see what ppl think, know what i mean?? Either way feel free to dispute my edits. Peace. Jrod2 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Art student scam
Hello, as RomaC requested I have moved the "spy" sandbox to a new title Allegations of Israeli espionage operation 2000-2001, and replaced the standing Art student scam article with the new sandbox version. These were done per consensus reached on the talk page. You will also notice I have added the new article about the spying allegations to several wikiprojects as well as included a notice regarding I/P General Sanctions. Hopefully, this can help defend the article objectively from some of the POV pushing and battleground mentality. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. I will check into it when I have time. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning World War II (overview article), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  20:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Budanova image
Hello, I was checking the article, while revisioning my book about Soviet Airwomen and watching the picture of the article I remembered that when I was in Moscow to meet her two nieces, Irina and Ludmilla, I showed them thar exact picture and they told me that the girl in the picture is NOT Katya Budanova, but another woman pilot probably Tamara Pamiathnyk. Kind Regards from Rome --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful to get a photograph from the nieces. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Da! :) They brought with them the only picture they had left of her in Mockba: it was an original portrait with a writing of Katya Budanova herself on the back. I tried desperately to get it, or to get even a copy, but they told me it was the only photo left, and that would send me the material after they will read the book... their mothers had given most of the material to pioneers groups that carried her name... I could only take some pictures of that photo, but it is not so good as the picture was bent... if you want I can show it to you but i have already given it to the publisher so probably it can not be used... however there are some picture of Budanova on the web... By the way, Polunina on her book writes that Budanova was born on the 6 of december and not on the 7th, I already changed the number...

regards from Italy --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC) regards from Rome

Brown note ref

 * http://meyersound.com/news/2004/brown_note/index.php

Linkspamming
James6019 is still at it.... Bytwerk (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I filed a report—let's see what the mop-holders think of this guy. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Jet engine
Hey -- I noticed that you edited out the Coanda 1910 from the jet engine article. I don't have a strong opinon either way, but, I just wanted to note that the definition used for "jet engine" in that article is very broad (including water jets), so the Coanda may be included. While it wasn't a gas turbine (which we have a seperate article for), it may have been a plain-ole "jet engine". -SidewinderX (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it broad enough to include a ducted fan design which never flew? Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's broad enough to include water jets for jet-skis, which also don't fly ;). Several of the designs mentioned in the article haven't been used (some of the turbo-ramjet stuff), or have a total world history of about 6 minutes of usage (scramjets). I'm not arguing one way or another... that history section (and the spun off History of the jet engine article) is one of the weakest sections of the article. I personally don't have the sources or inclination to try and fix it right now... I'm focusing on the more technical aspects. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure you understood the current scope of the article (for better or worse), and that your decision about whether or not to include that considers the total scope. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If the jet engine article includes G. Koch who invented an earlier ducted airscrew in 1893 then Coanda deserves mention. If not, not. The issue is such a hot one for an edit-warring IP-hopping Romanian editor that I think it should be the subject of RfC. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The errors of one article shouldn't be propagated into another! The current jet engine article would be better moved to "jet propulsion engines" or somesuch (there's already a jet propulsion that covers squirty squid too) and jet engine kept for the narrow intersection between jet propulsion and gas turbine. "Jet engine" has a widely used and understood definition in this narrow sense. Although WP can summon any number of impeccable sources to show that reality has got it wrong again, that sort of dogmatism only ever makes WP look ridiculous.


 * Under the narrow definition, motorjets (Caproni Campini N.1) and ducted fans are jet propulsion engines but not jet engine. I don't know which the Coanda was, but that wouldn't affect this categorization.


 * A ducted fan is driven by a motor and generates thrust. A motorjet has an engine driven compressor and also combusts fuel to provide jet thrust. It appears (although I've not researched it) that Coanda's was simply a ducted fan. There are several instances of both between 1910-1940: Coanda's novelty is that he built a full-size model, not merely a drawing. Lorin in France, 1908, described the use of a reciprocating piston engine exhaust for this thrust jet (as it has little mechanical work to do, it's a more powerful jet thrust than you might expect), in 1917 both Morize in France and Harris in England experimented with model motorjets using ejector principles, and in Harris' case a motor-driven centrifugal fan. These are well described in the early jet engine publications of the 1940s, such as Geoffrey Smith's books (each edition is worth a separate read) and also Tom Sawyer's.


 * The Coanda article needs to clear up its fan/motorjet aspect ASAP, with refs, then hammer the current edit war. This isn't helped by the lack of clarity over jet engine and the recent pointless battle over turboprops. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, we need an RfC to settle this. Our IP-hopping pro-jet Romanian editor is not showing any signs of letting up. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Andy, I don't think we need to move jet engine... we have the Airbreathing jet engine article that should cover that. Obviously that article needs work (like everything else on Wikipedia). Right now the Jet engine article covers everything "jet propulsion", from gas turbines to rockets to those water jets. My goal with that article is to make is easy enough for a user to get to the specific thing they were looking for (probably Turbofan if we're honest), while still providing an umbrella that covers the general physics.


 * Again, I don't really like the history section as it currently sits, but that's a challenge for someone bigger than me at the minute. As for the specific question about the Coanda... I'm not leaning one way or another. I just wanted to make sure Binksternet knew that the Jet engine article is quite widely scoped as written. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Airbreathing jet engine is editorially one of the worst articles (bigger than stubs) on WP. It's a prime example of a fractured article, snippets from varied editors, no overall structure and an existence that's there to meet the wants of editors, not those of readers. Jet engine is better, but still has the same problem: it has lost track that we're here to serve readers, not writers. Ask a child what a "jet engine" is and you'll get a clearer scope than WP's dogmatic nit-picking. Try going to either of these articles (particularly airbreathing) to read the page, rather than looking through the letterbox on the edit window. Neither of them make much sense. Neither meets the use case of a reader wanting to know what a "jet engine" is or how it works, coming to the page and finding an answer to what they actually need. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, don't judge Airbreathing jet engine too harshly... it was just recently spun out of the jet engine article to specifically remove all of that junk from what we are (I am) trying to make a much better article. It is a terrible article right now, but the important thing, in my opinion, is that it isn't cluttering up the jet engine article. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to the jet engine article, but we're making progress.
 * Honestly, I'm not sure if I agree with the current structure where "Jet Engine" refers to (broadly speaking) jet engines AND rockets. That seems to be a physics-focused organization (jet propulsion). I'm an engineer, and I tend to look at more practical organizations. In my mind, there is no real need for that top-level of organization -- just split it into "jet engine" and "rocket engine". I don't imagine there are many readers who are looking for how "jet force propulsion" works and is interested in both rockets and jets at the same time.
 * All that said, the article is the way it is now, and trying to dramatically change that would probably be quite a struggle. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Coanda-1910 specifically... that engine is disputed as to whether it had any combustion. For several decades following its exhibition, nobody thought it flew or that it had fuel injected into a combustion chamber. Its inventor, however, began to talk about the aircraft in the 1950s, telling stories of it flying once and crashing, and drawing diagrams of its engine that showed fuel and combustion. Others remembered the truth, diagrams from the early patents, and pointed out that it never flew, was sold to Charles Terres Weymann whole, and that its ducted fan engine used a complex arrangement of heat exchangers which routed piston engine exhaust and liquid coolant around the air flow, and that piston engine exhaust exited into the ducted fan just ahead of the "propeller". When the dust settles on the dispute, I am more in favor of the engine being called a ducted fan. Binksternet (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sex with a man
I have tried to keep this content in some decent way, if you are going to continue along the same gay outing POV sex with men story I would prefer to keep it out completely, please discuss at the BLPN if you have issues or remove the content altogether, I do not support your gay sex content. You seem to fail to understand the issue, we can either write it in a NPOV uninvolved way or we can keep it out altogether. Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the deal? Your version had Crist denying the 2009 film which he never did. Your version is wrong. Instead, Crist said "Never" to Bob Norman when asked if he had ever had sex with a man. My version is accurate and true. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Crist denies the whole story totally completely. Your version seems to want to mention Gay Sex, please consider the uninvolved position and remember BLP and that none of these allegaton are proven in any way, please I am a busy person and I tire of this opinionated twaddle.Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Has Crist commented on the 2009 film after it was shown? If so, I would like to see the reference. My reference has Crist denying ever having "sex with a man" in 2006. I'm just trying to keep it accurate per references. The WP:BLP issues came to naught at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where the section on "Avoid gossip" was shown to be satisfied: the material is presented as being true, the material is relevant to a disinterested party, the sources are reliable. The "gossip" argument doesn't stand, and there are no more parts of WP:BLP which apply. The material has every right to be in the article, and responsible writing will include it. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if you feel like that then go for it, I disagree with you. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop inserting your content that imo is excessive allegations as regards gay sex, and such like as I said uninvolved and NPOV are the concerns as regards BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. You say "go for it", then you say "please stop". I guess I am not understanding your position. However, the WP:BLP issues are taken care of: there is no part of BLP which is not answered by my first version, the full one discussed at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. You say something about WP:NPOV which I believe is completely satisfied, and I gather you are saying something about WP:UNINVOLVED which I don't see as relevant, since neither of us is an admin. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wife Acceptance Sophistry
I'm with you 100%. That page is nonsense. I said so on the talk page. Talk:Wife acceptance factor--Atlantictire (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Communicat
With recent evidence strongly suggesting he is Stan Winer, would that make this edit of Communicat's  a violation of Wikipedia rules on legal threats? Edward321 (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, if he's indeed Winer then that threat looks to me like a severe violation. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

WP Architecture in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Architecture for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Romaniantruth constant provocations
I'm tired of constant provocations from Romaiantruths, for example he just wrote " If you want to discuss this article maybe you should read it." which was uncalled for. I just asked about a clarification about something you wrote, not about the article content. If you can't keep a lid on Romaniantruths then don't ask me to continue to be civil with this individual. He complains about bad language but then he goes on quoting it over and over, that's bad faith in my view. Frankly I'm tired of all this, I'll let you work with him, I was interested in this issue, but I can't work on this if I'm constantly harassed by this individual. For your curiosity read what he posted and how he provoked me for that outburst... Anyway, I don't know much about the subject, even if it was interesting I find it too much of pain to continue the discussion. See ya on other articles. man with one red shoe 22:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Take it to WP:Conflict resolution... really! Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's OK, I discovered this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Difficult_editor_-_flow_chart.png I took the first exit out. man with one red shoe 02:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland. Thank you. Cloonmore (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm watching the progress of your article improvements, and I appreciate the better, more accurate wording that you have used. About sources, though, none of the ones I used are poor quality. You have not removed any, or challenged any, so what specifically are you saying about reliable sources? Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the fact that your wording isn't supported by the sources. What good are "reliable sources" if you're going to write slapdash, inaccurate statements? Your first sentence re Kiesle said, "In Pinole, Stephen Kiesle was ordained in 1972, and the same year he began abusing Teresa Rosson, age 11, the daughter of a woman he later married."  The allegation of abuse is wrongly presented as fact.  And he was not ordained in Pinole.  And the sentence and remainder of your paragraph completely failed to point out that he was removed from priestly duties in 1978, suggesting that he was a priest throughout the 20-odd years of alleged abuse of Rosson.  I could go on, but you no doubt get the point. If your sources are reliable, then stick to them.  Cloonmore (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for improving the wording. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 21:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

SBA List
I shouldn't even bother, because I'm not here to debate with you but to present the debate to readers, but when you and Gordon claim that Anthony "never voiced an opinion about the sanctity of human life", this flies in the face of Anthony's "unborn little ones...willed away from them" quote. The quote implies that Anthony believed the unborn had at least some degree of humanity, and weren't just "blobs of tissue", the doltish junk science of the pro-abortion movement. BS24 (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that tiny bit of a quote is from Anthony talking about a case where the legal will of a man controlled his children even if they were unborn at his death. At the time, there would be no action taken on this control until the birth of the child, at which time the child would be under the dead father's estate, subject to the dead father's instructions contained in his will. Anthony could have said "newborn little ones" to be perfectly accurate, but for whatever reason she chose to say "unborn little ones". Your interpretation and mine have nothing to do with Anthony's view of the sanctity of prenatal life. Her words express nothing at all of sanctity. The only impression that one is left with is that Anthony knew that "unborn little ones" existed. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just being curious, when do you believe life begins? BS24 (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * About age 17. ;^)
 * Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I might actually agree. But seriously, when do you believe it begins? BS24 (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Listing Coanda under Aircraft engine
I'd still see this as worthy of note. A ducted fan in 1910, especially involving someone as significant in fluid dynamics as Coanda, is worth a list entry. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I respect your position, but I would rather see influential engines listed, ones which were cited by subsequent designers. Henri Coanda achieved significance in the 1930s. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Could you please ask for protection of all Coanda 1910 related articles based on this? I would really do it myself but I don't know how. Thank you in advance! [User:Lsorin|Lsorin]] (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, protection has already been given to Coanda-1910 and Henri Coanda so that the dispute can be worked out. Related articles should fall in line with whatever is determined at Coanda-1910. Secondly, the link you provided has no author listed at the webpage, and it shows no cites for where it took its information, lessening its authority. No matter how many links are found which show that Coanda built and flew the first jet, there are still the eminent aviation historians Frank H. Winter and Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith who say it was not a jet and that it never flew. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! If you read the Talk:1910_in_aviation in the end is left to see which eminence is bigger Gibbs-Smith or Coanda. Good luck in receiving more star decorations in Wikipedia and finally by the Her Majesty the Queen together next to others in the past like Nicolae Ceauşescu. [User:Lsorin|Lsorin]] (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Daft Punk talk box
You sure about that?

Daft Punk is actually in Webster's book of Quotations, Facts and Phrases under the definition of talk box, along with Frampton and Bon Jovi. Other sources:

http://www.waxpoetics.com/2009/05/talk-box/

http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/a/ar/around_the_world_(daft_punk_song).htm

http://www.guitarsolos.com/videos-microkorg-talk-box-%5BQBnelrr2M-c%5D.cfm

Here's a bunch of people on youtube covering around the world, always with a talk box and never a vocorder.

Here's some vocals that are vocorded. And here's Daft Punk.

Yeah, that's definitely a talk box.--Atlantictire (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your sources have some problems: The Webster's Quotations one and the associatepublisher.com links are mirrors of Wikipedia content, so they are useless as sources for Wikipedia. The Wax Poetics source does not specifically talk about the song "Around the World". The guitarsolos.com link did not work. The youtube video of Daft Punk's "Around the World" does not show a talk box. The covers of the song have no bearing on whether Daft Punk used a talk box or not. What you need is a reliable source such as the song's producer or recording engineer, or one of Daft Punk, saying that they used a talk box for this specific song. Binksternet (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken it out since it seems so controversial. This is being debated on just about every music forum I looked at.
 * I'm going to create pages for Eventide and Tychobrahe since that article seems to have a policy of not listing specific products unless there's an article for them, and I think it's a really good one. They'll be sandboxed for a few weeks probably.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for the 25DYK medal you awarded me. I was sure it would come from someone who is also a great DYKs contributor. Good luck with your contributions and your own enjoyment of Wikipedia! --  S ulmues (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome! Your fine Albania-topic articles are an inspiration to me. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Lytviak 31 July's kills
Hello, I cant find any references of the supposed kills of 31 july in Pennington, Cottam, Noogle, Sakhaida etc. books. I think that in this case the source is inaccurate. I think it is better to delete them. DO you agreed? Regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What can I say?
I owe you an apology. In my discussion on the Wikietiquette forum I said at one point,"He even called Binksternet a retard, but I know better than to call him a liar." There probably isn't much point in going into exactly what I meant by this. I was (unjustifiably) pissed off and I'm not entirely sure myself how serious I was at the time. I'll certainly try to act more reasonably in future to everyone, especially people who haven't actually done anything. Please don't bother replying to this unless you're angry. It's kinda neat having a talk page entirely composed of warnings. It makes a good reminder for me.Romaniantruths (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Insightful thoughts; thanks for sharing. I was not angry in the least. Binksternet (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:RSN
Hi, I'm pointing you to this discussion I've started, since I cited one of your edits in my comment. It's about whether the "Five Gateways" genealogical site can be consider to be a reliable source. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that you had already inquired about it there -- I've combined the section I started with the one you began. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply from Roger491127
Quote from my talk page:

"Roger, at Wikipedia, we do not go by the so-called "truth" (as described in this essay), we go by mainstream sources. If you cannot show mainstream sources which place Whitehead as the first powered flight, then your goal here is foiled, the goal of rewriting history books through Wikipedia. Note that Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing ones own ideas, and it is not the place to advocate ideas which are in opposition to the mainstream. See WP:NOTADVOCATE. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)"

Please note that Whitehead has become increasingly famous during the last 30 years, I have seen 7-8 programs about him on the Discovery tv channel here in Sweden in the last 5 years, but not a single program about Wright brothers or any other early aviator. And Whitehead has caused a clash between the legislature assemblies in Connecticut and North Carolina. No other early aviator has caused so much interest and conflicts than Whitehead. If you cannot refute my arguments in the discussion page of Aviation history with rational arguments and properly referenced quotations from verifiable sources I assume you have admitted that I am right and you are wrong. Roger491127 (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we are stalled at the point where I asked for mainstream aviation history book references from you. Until those are brought forward, I will continue to wait. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Books are a very slow medium, they take many years to write and publish, today we have to take into account internet sources and mainstream media channels. You cannot just dig your heels in the dust of the academic world. Roger491127 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * However, your Discovery shows and your Whitehead-specific programs which do not cover all of aviation history fail to demonstrate the relative importance of Whitehead in all of aviation history. Only references which discuss all of aviation history are going to answer the question of how much weight to give Whitehead. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mossadegh
There are sentences in the current Mossadeqh that are not sourced and inaccurate. I will delete those and will add my changes with sources. I appreciate your helpful hints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialsmitty.i.am (talk • contribs) 19:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ann Dexter Gordon
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Mike Hayes vs Mike hayes
You might want to choose only one of your two user accounts, to prevent confusion. I noticed that one has a capital "H" (User:Mike Hayes) and the other has a lower-case "h" (User:Mike hayes). You could make one of them into a redirect so that only one is your active account. See Username policy for details. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * How do I log into both of them at the same time? Mike Hayes is the Username I use on foreign language Wikipedias. Mike hayes was an accident and I only use it on en.Wikipedia. Mike Hayes (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to log in to both at once. Perhaps a more experienced editor would know, probably an administrator. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

AWB Changes

 * Again --Kumioko (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Robotics
I edited the robotics article on Wed 6th of October, then I see that you deleted my edit. I am a new user and I hope you can tell me what I did wrong. Thanks.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hussaino3 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There were two issues, and I reacted to one of them. Your edit put skype formatting into the article, a nonsense jumble of words and underscores which messed up a link to Asimov's book.


 * Your intended edit was there, too, the one where you say that Shockley's junction transistor was the most influential invention for robotics. This claim may have been stated by someone, but it needs a cite. Take a look at WP:CITE for pointers on how to cite your references. Referenced text stands a much greater chance of surviving the friction and grind of collective wiki-style editing. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Tuskegee Airmen
The source stating that the 15th Air Force originated the belief that the TAs never lost a bomber to the Germans is one of the newspaper articles cited as a source in that section. You can read it for yourself.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the medal
Thanks for the medal and kind words. I'm very pleased to be up with the top set but 500 looks like a lifetimes work! The article on the convention is started. Fancy helping? If not then thanks anyway. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see your Sandbox #3 has the work in progress. Of interest to me is the "woman question" rearing up at the convention. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and her new husband Henry Brewster Stanton went to the London convention as their honeymoon, in company with the prominent Quaker couple Lucretia and James Mott. In London, the American women delegates were shunted upstairs into the gallery behind a curtain where they would not be visible to the male delegates. American delegate William Lloyd Garrison joined the females in protest after arriving too late to join the debate.
 * http://www.wwhp.org/Resources/Slavery/mott.html
 * Archived source from the U.S. National Park Service
 * http://www.nps.gov/wori/historyculture/elizabeth-cady-stanton.htm
 * http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/today/jan03.html
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=rpuSzowmIkgC&pg=PA461
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=YDnCTyp5ZkgC&pg=PA301
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=BagrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA447
 * A bit more about the 1840 convention can be seen at Seneca_Falls_Convention. Enjoy! Binksternet (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute
Hi Binksternet, as per suggestions on talk pages and in the interest of streamlining, I have created one new article for the Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute. As it stands now I basically copied and pasted from the SBA and SBA List pages, so I ask your help in combining them consistently. I hope we can work on this article together in a way that will satisfy all parties. Thanks! BS24 (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting that article going; I had been holding the idea of doing so myself in my mind for the past month or so, but never found the time. I'll take a look pretty in the next few days. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Coanda 1910 sandbox
Just read the your latest version of the sandbox article. Leaving aside the current discussions of what it was and what it did, it does read quite well. Next stage would probably be peer review and hopefully thereafter GA review, but that will have to wait obviously.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that! I would be happy just to see the sandbox article replace the current one. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning
Nice try, but I read and it was soundly rejected because it didn't come close to qualifying. Meanwhile, i've filed one in kind for the both of you as well as filed a WQA abuse report for the two of you. You both are ganging up against me and its unwarranted. Eman007 22:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There was no ganging up on you, just two editors looking for what they considered the best photo.
 * You got lucky on the admin decision at 3RR; I've seen that situation go both ways—four reverts in 24 hours is usually considered an "electric fence" with no leeway. The filing against you was not "soundly rejected" and you should not think that further edit warring behavior on your part will be allowed in the future. Filing a Wikiquette alert should not be an act of retaliation. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't get "lucky". I didn't violate the 3R rule period. Meanwhile, you both are very close to it yourselves and hence you didn't revert it back. The WQA alert is adequate. You've both ignored my requests as well as your own hypocritically for consensus and discussion as I feel that what you and Paulh are doing in particular is abuse and i'm not going to tolerate it anymore. Trying to silence me by 3R is not going to work. Eman007 11:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to your opinion about 3RR and how you dodged that bullet. What WQA alert are you talking about? Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse - It would have been polite for Eman007 to tell you about Wikiquette_alerts MilborneOne (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No edit warring here
It seems it's you who has a history of edit warring (and you lost your rollback rights due to this), not me. I'm just trying to balance out bias in the article. I'll try to be more communicative there in the future (talk page, summaries). ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 16:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll have to grant that I know what edit warring is. :/
 * Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the lead is too short now that you rewrote it. Care to discuss? ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  17:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Article improvement discussion goes at Talk:American exceptionalism. See you there! Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Stagecraft Newsletter
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Stagecraft at 14:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

ADG
Thanks for your advice on my talk page, but you're wrong. WP:LEAD does not enjoin us to emphasize relatively trivial information in the lead para. Quite the contrary. Anyway, if you wish to talk about the article, do it here: Talk:Ann Dexter Gordon. Cloonmore (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The only applicable guide you seek is at WP:UNDUE, but you would have no luck with it because the material you do not like is very notable. WP:LEAD does not cover material that one editor thinks is very important but another thinks is "relatively trivial". It covers article layout and format, and directs that the article lead summarize the article contents. You were trying to remove a one-sentence summary of a whole section at Ann Dexter Gordon. Not good. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And again. You're rambling.  Take it to Talk. Cloonmore (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Believe me when I say I know what edit warring looks like, and it looks to me like you are headed for edit warring. I would not recommend such a path.
 * The guideline at WP:LEAD is perfectly clear. If a topic gets major treatment in an article, it should be mentioned in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're a regular felon. Nice rap sheet. Cloonmore (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Monterey/ Monterrey
Hi. You reversed my edit on the alternative spelling. How are users who are not aware of the different spelling supposed to know that they cannot find what they are looking for because there are two different spellings? Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * None of those people will ever end up at Monterey, California, because they would have to type "California" to get there. If they type Monterrey, California, a misspelled version, they end up at the correct article through a redirect page.
 * Anyway, to help the unaware users, both of the relevant disambiguation pages refer to each other: Monterey (disambiguation) and Monterrey (disambiguation). If one is mentioned, the other does not need to be. 21:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, perhaps you could have been clearer by what you/ is meant by "rv unneeded hat dab". Not everybody is an expert on internal WP terminology and the policy is to make everybody as welcome and as at home as possible and not to intimitate newcomers (which I am not) by trying to cower them into taking an inferion position to admins or those with years of experince. People who go around reverting without offering a proper explanation are - in my opinion - the greatest threat to the growth of the Wikipedia and its sister projects.  Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Back at you
Look you have already made 3 reverts in little more than 24 hours. I have been willing to compromise, to address your valid concerns. But if you insist on edit-warring and pretending that you have consensus to do so, I would have to notify Toddst1 who is familiar with your history of edit-warring and disruption, and had warned you to cease and desist. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay
They are all now cited -Angel David (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But not notable. Cites that come from the subject of the article are of limited use. They do not define what is notable, only reliable sources from outside the subject. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Specifically targets"
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Feminists for Life. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Cloonmore (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You have an anti-collegial interpretation of the concept "vandalism". Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "vandalism" is an ill fit. Your pattern of behavior is much better captured here. Cloonmore (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI
I guess the incident is solved. I'm sorry for labeling your edit a vandalist act. Now if you do strive for a balanced article, please introduce leftist, liberal and European thoughts into the article with the same fervor. Thanks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 17:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am only whacking the moles which stick up. I have not been adding much material, and will not be doing so in the near future. If a rightist text is inserted into the article poorly written, out of balance, misapplied, etc... I will whack it too. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The way I come at is this: The wiki articles are as a herd of harmless animals surrounded by some who wish them harm, and I am charged with keeping the herd safe while helping it prosper. Among the things I resist strongly are editors who wish not to inform in a neutral manner but to slant the article to promote their viewpoint. Editors who wish to promote their religion, or party politics, or one of the views on abortion, make me move quickly. The same can be said for editors who remove cited, mainstream material that does not promote their favorite viewpoint. In this sense, I am no vandal, nor a tendentious editor, but a shepherd of the wiki. It's in the eyes of the beholder. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)