User talk:Binksternet/Archive17

DYK for Kaneyoshi Muto
The DYK project (nominate) 22:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great work with this article. It's really interesting and well put together. Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. Your praise means a lot to me. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Abortion amendment request
Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 04:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit wiki page of Kamikaze
Hello. For the Kamikaze wiki page, I think you may consider undo the deletion of "Although kamikaze was the most common ... as opposed to ramming and detonating among enemy naval forces" on 30 Dec 2011. The paragraph gives readers a comparasion between "Banzai" and "Kamikaze", which help a better understanding of the definition of "Kamikaze". Thank you. Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.118.162 (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you shed some light on which author, which historian has discussed this difference? The text needs to be cited to a published work. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find a source discussing the difference between the two terms. All articles cite reference to Wikipedia. Haha. By definition, Kamikaze is suicide attack. Banzai charge is a kind of human wave attack. Operation Ten-Go was intended to beach Yamato as shore batteries and fend off allies. If the operation succeed (although very unlikely), Yamato might not be destroyed and its crew might survive. Therefore, strictly speaking, Operation Ten-Go is not Kamikaze. I appreciate the seriousness in maintaining Wikipedia. If the text is required to be cited to a published work, then it is fair to delete those text, though I found it correct and useful. Thank you. Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.118.162 (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the idea that Yamato was a banzai charge and not a kamikaze mission needs to have been published by reliable sources such as books, magazine articles, etc. But don't give up so soon! Check out these links:
 * The definitions of banzai charge range from perhaps a slight chance of survival to definitely none at all, certain suicide. The descriptions of Yamato's last run are often set in the same terms. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Katonga River / Lake Victoria
Given the confusion of the Katonga River being even the possible Outflow, is it right that on the Lake Victoria page, the White Nile is listed as the ONLY outflowing river source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanclae (talk • contribs) 16:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I have never looked into the issue. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC
Hey Binksternet, thanks for your review at FAC! I've replied to your points there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cik di Tiro
Hi Binksternet, I've replied at the nomination page. Thanks for the review! Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

SPI
Nice catch! RashersTierney (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hope my mojo keeps workin', 'cuz this mofo socker will. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Elvis Presley
I have cited some further sources on Talk:Elvis Presley. But DocKino is still suppressing all sources that prove him wrong. I think this is not O.K., especially in view of the fact that this guy is part of a gang that polices the Elvis article and tends to attack all contributors who endeavor to add well-sourced critical material to the article. See also these personal attacks by DocKino from 2010:. Onefortyone (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sympathetic to DocKino's stance as article arbiter but in this instance I agree that the proposed sentence should be added. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the hat tip
...and a happy 2012 to you! --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Best wishes! ^_^
 * Binksternet (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Kill zone
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

1945 Japan–Washington flight
I've promoted the article. Not sure on the subsection, it's in Military aircraft and airfields now. Feel free to move it though.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  22:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Super! Thank you for the thorough review. The military aircraft section should cover it well enough. Is there a section on "Cold War posturing"? Heh heh... Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Dan Dugan (audio engineer)
Hi,

As you've noticed, I'm reviewing your nomination at Talk:Dan Dugan (audio engineer)/GA1 and have added a few more comments. Please forgive me for taking some time, as the topic is more complex than I thought, and I'm trying to read up on it.

Best wishes,

MathewTownsend (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No sweat, man, I'm in no hurry. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you address my remaining comments? Otherwise, it's a pass and a very interesting read. Well done! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Passed! (I'm assuming Dan Dugan uploaded his photos? Right?)  MathewTownsend (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good review! Yes, Dugan uploaded a batch of his own photos, and I uploaded a few that I took with my camera. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject!
ralphamale (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

latest proposed change in 1953 Iran coup article
I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of cleaning up the article to fix duplication, contradiction and bad chronology. Here are my proposed changes. Please leave a comment. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"Unthinking automated 'corrections'"
Your edit summary at the article Grotrian-Steinweg characterised the bulk of my edits as "unthinking automated 'corrections'" and you reverted them. In general, I find the principles of "Revert only when necessary" worthy of consideration. In particular, I assure you they were not automated and are the result of some thinking. In detail: I suggest you revert your edit; additionally, please consider WP:Revert only when necessary. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * the correct syntax for a reference invocation by name is, as for any unary HTML tag, to close it with a space preceding the slash:
 * the wikilink for Germany in the infobox is a case of WP:OVERLINK
 * when using, the parameter right is unnecessary.
 * the term "Initial Interest Confusion" is capitalised at its article and I presume with good reason
 * the template Commons category is useful even for articles which currently already show all of that caterory's images as more files might be placed into that category in the future


 * Recently I surfed Wikipedia on an old Apple computer that had never been updated since it was installed. None of the images were right-justified except ones that specifically had the parameter "right".
 * There is no reader-apparent change in going from =foo/> to =foo />. Both are supported by wiki markup.
 * The Germany wikilink does not seem like too much to me, being only one wikilink in the whole article.
 * The article about initial interest confusion was not written by an expert in English, I suspect. In reliable sources, the legal term appears more often in lower case than otherwise.
 * I deleted the Commons link because at the time I was under the impression that every single image related to Grotrian was incorporated into the article. Such a link would in that case not be helpful to the reader, because it would not give him anything new. Upon going to Commons just now I found that there is one unincluded image of a Chinese pianist playing a Grotrian, however, that image is up for deletion. I stand by my edits. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never seen anyone complain about misbehaving image alignment where the parameter right is absent; this should be discussed at WP:IMAGE, WP:PIC, Help:Files, or WP:VPT, so it can be corrected.
 * As there is indeed no change in the appearance of an article, whether it uses correct syntax or not, I find it, by your own argument, difficult to understand why you reverted to the incorrect form. This is clearly against WP:Revert only when necessary.
 * WP:OVERLINK is not restricted to a flood of links. In the infobox entry "Braunschweig, Germany", a link to "Germany" would be unhelpful. What information relevant to Grotrian-Steinweg can a reader possibly find there?
 * Whether the article on "Initial Interest Confusion" should be spelled "initial interest confusion" or "initial-interest confusion" or any combination of these is a matter for that article; as long as it is named the way it is, it cannot possibly be wrong to use it.
 * You missed my point about possible future additions to Commons categories. You also don't seem to be concerned about the language of your edit summary; I found it rude and uncalled-for. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to impugne your work to improve Wikipedia. I simply meant to restore the automated, the "unthinking" parts of your edit. For every don't-revert-unnecessarily argument there is the response of don't make unnecessary changes in the first place.
 * Certainly, the capital 'C' you placed in the middle of a sentence was not a good change, nor was the capitalization of a quoted phrase, "initial interest".
 * At any rate, I promise not to revert the trivial changes in any of your future work. Have fun at it, don't sweat grumpy old me. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Aero/airplane
Hello - hope you don't mind me hopping over to your talkpage. Just wanted to address the synonym issue without cluttering up the other page. The problem is that fixed wing and plane are not synonyms. A plane is a powered fixed wing. Fixed wing by itself includes planes, gliders, hang gliders, kites, etc. That's the problem - the terminology doesn't match up. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Plane is a number of things. It is a two-dimensional geometric entity. It is a tool for removing thin layers of wood. It is a somewhat flat structure used on an aircraft for lift, flight control or stabilization. It is a curved wing used solely for lift. It is an airplane, aeroplane, or aircraft. I see no problem with housing the article about powered aircraft under the title which means powered and unpowered fixed-wing aircraft. It is simple enough to use summary style to point the reader at a more complete description of kites, gliders, etc. while dedicating the majority of the article to powered aircraft with fixed wings. Oh, wait, that's what we already have. No action needed. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't quite address my concern. The point I was trying to make is that "fixed-wing aircraft" and "airplane" (or "aeroplane") are not synonyms. They're related - in fact, one is a subset of the other - but not synonymous. Don't you agree? Dohn joe (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't share your wish to move the article to a new title or to change the content of the article. I think it works okay as it is. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine - and in line with the fourth option I offered at the talkpage. But don't you at least see my point that there is a consistency problem - that Fixed-wing aircraft is trying to be the article about both fixed-wing aircraft and aero/airplanes? Which means that in essence, there is no article about the latter (the current one includes the latter, but is not about it)? Dohn joe (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the problem and I'm happy with its solution. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay - cool. Dohn joe (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Cookie offering
You wrote: "Born2cycle is too disruptive on a human level to be allowed to continue to work with human volunteers." Just knowing that someone has this kind of impression of me hurts, and I'm anxious to know what I did to cause you to feel this, as I don't recall any specific interactions we've had. I searched through our talk pages and found only this from 2009, which seems quite congenial: User_talk:Binksternet/Archive5.

More importantly, what can I do to improve your impression of me at this time?

I would also like to repeat my pledge from the AN discussion: I promise to change in the following ways: 1) Comment less and less often on RM discussions in which I'm involved (I presume the number of RM discussions in which I'm involved is not the problem), especially when engaged in a dispute. 2) I will be more agreeable and less disagreeable. 3) If I must disagree, I'll try to find something positive to say first, or at least be apologetic about disagreeing. 4) I'll be more careful how I word things to make it less likely for me to be misinterpreted, which I know occurs often. For example, when I refer to policy I'll be more careful about presenting it in a way that is conveyed as being positive and productive rather than combative. 5) I'll look for signs from others, especially those who have taken the time to commented here, to let me know how I'm doing. 6) I will continue to welcome, and will encourage even more, specific suggestions on what I could do to improve my disposition in all discussions in which I'm involved. 7) I will not think, believe, convey or say that just because I'm not violating the letter of any policy or guideline does not mean there is no problem to address. Thank you.

Finally, I offer a cookie, because that can never hurt. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)



Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

.


 * I don't consider your pledge anything but a ploy offered in extremis. It does not represent your past style and personality, so I do not think it will stick. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow. Thank you for your honesty.  Frankly, you might be right because there is a part of me that is still not fully understanding how or why I affected so many people so negatively.  Maybe it's from using email for so many decades to communicate with other software engineers; we seem to engage in a certain way that is seen by others as off-putting or inhuman.  It's purposeful dissociation designed to avoid emotional conflict so we could focus on, well, whatever the software problems are and whatever technical issues need to be worked out.  But usually it's with people with whom I also have 1:1 physical contact, so we know each other.  But, out of habit more than intentionally, I've taken the same approach in dealing with issues on Wikipedia.  It's not a problem with everyone, but I've realized it's one I can't ignore, and I cannot continue engaging in that manner.  As I understand it right now the key is to be much more sensitive in disputes and disagreements.  What I wrote in that pledge yesterday I could not have written even a few days earlier.  The process for me started, by the way, before the WP:AN proposal was initiated.  For example, see User_talk:Sphilbrick.  Thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

link?
Hi you said, CoM was banned for disputes on Wikipedia process pages and is currently banned from editing any WP process pages - I do remember something about that, have you got a link to the decision - was it indefinite or time limited? You really  can  02:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's down near the bottom of the ArbCom page: Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight. Remedy #2. "ChildofMidnight is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited, Template talk:Did you know, and his own talk and user talk pages only. In all cases he is forbidden from discussing the behavior of other editors, real or perceived, outside of his own user talk page. ChildofMidnight may apply to the Committee for exemptions to this restriction for the purposes of good faith dispute resolution on a case-by-case basis. This remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban."
 * To me, "consecutive" means after the editing ban, CoM is restricted to the above listed things, and forbidden from the above listed things. I could be wrong, but it will take some wikilawyering to pry out the meaning. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, on first glance I would agree with your interpretation. Many thanks for the links -   You  really  can  02:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Bose
Thanks heaps for your support. I think finally the page is getting more like a proper wikipedia article and less like a rehash of marketing propaganda! 1292simon (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks yourself. You're doing the hard work! The Bose articles, all bazillion of them, have too long been in need of a strong disciplinarian. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I tried to make all the articles in Template:Bose more NPOV, but the previous marketing propaganda keeps getting restored. If you could have a look through these articles, that would be much appreciated! Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Please consider requesting your DYK for Arizona Pioneers' Home run on 100th anniversary of Arizona statehood
I noticed you have recently nominated Arizona Pioneers' Home at DYK. One thing you may wish to consider is requesting this article be moved to the special occasion holding area for February 14, 2012. Given the article's obvious ties to Arizona it would make sense to highlight it on the 100th anniversary of Arizona statehood. --Allen3 talk 22:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Great idea! I will do so. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Question
Hi,

I've edited the chapter "Piano brands" in the article Steinway & Sons. I see that you've made a partial revert of this. I'm not sure about why it has been reverted; is it because of a lack of sources? If you see Steinway's website they describe all the three brands more or less "superior pianos far better than any other piano companies, and so on" and it doesn't say much about the difference of the three brands. My purpose of editing the chapter "Piano brands" was to make it clear what the two other brands (Boston and Essex) are about.

I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

Best, Piano68john (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Your first two cites are the essence of WP:Synthesis: A + B = C. You brought in two Piano Buyer URLs as examples but neither one of them mentions Steinway. From that you conclude that "other high-quality piano companies" do what Steinway does. This is synthesis which is not allowed.
 * Your next few cites are to Steinway sources, not reliable secondary sources. Steinway sources are likely to produce information that nobody cares about such as the company term "Family of Steinway-Designed Pianos" not found anywhere else. A tree falls in the forest...
 * Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the synthesis problem.

Best, Piano68john (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

CFC
Thanks for handling the tiresome "self-described" discussion while I was traveling and away from my computer. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just Another DayTM at the office. ^_^
 * Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! May you forever enjoy working to increase the world's knowledge. Binksternet (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: FAC trade
Sounds good! I'll try to review it on prose and sourcing as soon as possible, though I'm not sure how soon that will be due to irl priorities. I'll let you know. Cheers,  Auree    ★  17:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay! I will start on your article in the mean time. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Every so often I run into a page that has been edited by you and I think "that's really an improvement. I should drop him a note on his talk page" So here is The Kitten Of Good Editing for you. (smile)

Guy Macon (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC) 


 * Grin! Thanks, man. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Clarinet Choir
Dear Binksternet: I don't know if this is the best way to communicate, but I can't find any other way to communicate back to an editor. You deleted a number of links from our listing to other Wikipedia pages that I just added. The links were to Mozart, Rossini, Sousa,Joplin and a number of other appropriate composers. I see almost all of the other listings under Clarinet Choir have similar musical pieces listed in their articles. Why were my listing of composers deleted as advertising?? They were just links to other Wikipedia sites not outside sites. If mine are not allowed, should you delete all the composer and title lists from all the other clarinet choirs? It's difficult to determine what is helpful information for readers and what is considered "advertising". I'm not really advertising Mozart, Rossini, etc. Thank you for your help. Silverwood Clarinet Choir. Kkkkkmusic (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You were fluffing up your the choir to promote it. It's not very important which composers' music it plays. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I just checked the Clarinet Choir page and there are about 30 choir listed. Over 20 of them list works and composers they perform. Is it right they should be allowed to list their works/composers and we have to look like a minimal/unimportant organization without much information? That is my main question. I will not add the works, but I feel you should delete the works off the other listings also, or let us all list some of our works. Thanks. Kkkkkmusic (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, all the other choirs excess information should be deleted as well. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you looking into it. I don't feel I have authorization or I should delete other's information. Are you going to delete the "excess information" on the other choirs? Thanks. Kkkkkmusic (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Heh heh. You have the same authority I do! If you don't remove the other people's excess info I will in a little bit when I have the time. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you will receive this edit of an old communicaiton, but I'll try - don't know how to start a new one. A question about the "Reference" section in the Clarinet Choir page. Many of the groups have links to their websites in the Reference section. Is this allowed? I understood from your comments that you can not link to yourown site. If it is not allowed, can you please check the Clarinet Choir section and delete all the References that link back to the others sites. If it is allowed, I will add ours there because we do have information and links on our website that others may be interested in -- we are not selling anything just giving away some free mp3's, links, etc. Thanks. 21:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC) kkkkkmusic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkkkkmusic (talk • contribs)


 * Take a look at WP:External links to see what the guideline says. I think the promotional links should go. Only links to articles about the general topic of clarinet choirs should be allowed. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I read a number of links articles and it sounds like it is allowed in the Reference or Source section as long as you are not advertising to sell something or profit from it. I want to do the correct, but fair thing with any links. One statement was: An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following: I will add a link offering more information on links and free mp3's - it seems like that is allowed. If for some other reason it is not, then all the other links should also be removed. Thanks. 23:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkkkkmusic (talk • contribs)
 * 1) The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
 * 2) The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.


 * Who is the subject of the article? Clarinet choir music. Not a single choir, but all choirs. In that light not a single choir should have an external link. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nilsson Sings Newman
The article Nilsson Sings Newman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nilsson Sings Newman for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? ♫GoP♫ T C N 12:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yay! Thanks for the fine review. Binksternet (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Look familiar?
Hello Binksternet, I wrote a post here a few days ago and there is now a complaint at WQA concerning this IP editor. Knowing that you are good at recognizing socks around MILHIST articles, I was wondering if you might recognize who this is. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  23:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not ringing a bell. Here's what I have for locations:
 * 74.98.249.151 Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, USA
 * 8.225.186.193 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 * 98.111.221.215 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 * 72.77.70.141 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 * I don't know if there is a banned editor who lived in or around Pittsburgh. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing that. I had a gap in days between being on wiki and forgot that I had to follow up on this. Yeah, he's no good and has been blocked at a few IPs now and it doesn't look like he plans to mend his ways. He's also been blocked at 108.39.147.13. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►</b>  12:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The articles involved could be semi-protected. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

unreliable source?
On my watchlist I noticed you deleted some references I had edited articles as unreliable source. I know you are a respected and devoted Wiki person so I ask what about the source is unreliable or have I not referenced details correctly? The sources are from Scientific American periodicals that I own and have scanned on the site machine-history.com or machinehistory.com and believed viewers would like to see the actual article to know the data is correct.

25 January 2012 (diff | hist). .  Krieger Company of Electric Vehicles‎; 05:29. . (-70) . . Binksternet (talk | contribs)‎ (delete unreliable source) (diff | hist). .  Photographophone‎; 05:28. . (-87) . . Binksternet (talk | contribs)‎ (Delete unreliable source) (diff | hist). .  James W. Queen & Company‎; 05:27. . (-111) . . Binksternet (talk | contribs)‎ (deleting unreliable source)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuzi (talk • contribs) 02:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I found that the site hosts works that are copyrighted, that the site does not respect copyright. Certainly, an old piece of literature, published before 1923, is in the public domain now. However, the machine-history.com website freely crosses this boundary.
 * As well, we cannot know that the apparent document is scanned accurately or whether it is altered for some purpose. The website does not have a respected author who stakes his or her name on the accuracy of the scans; instead there is an auto mechanic from Tennessee who owns the domain, and that is all the clue we have to figure out the level of reliability behind the website. It's just not reliable enough for Wikipedia when there is no acknowledged expert or panel of experts at the helm. There's nobody in charge! That's why I have removed a bunch of the website's references from various articles, with an emphasis on the more modern ones that are clearly violations of copyright. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am an auto mechanic from Tennessee without a collage degree that owns and runs the domains that go by machinehistory.com and machine-history.com. I do repair cars for a living. I do own the periodicals that are linked to the 3 articles that you deleted. I disagree that some unrelated info somewhere else on that site in your opinion is copyrighted makes the site a unreliable source. My name is Daniel Lynn. Other contributions that I added, were from other sites I have done, like the one for my father who was a Navy VFP-62 fighter pilot. rlynn.net There is a link to that site with no acknowledged expert or panel. I feel that this site is most reliable since it is from directly the periodical not an article about an article as with some of the links you did not remove. Either way, I will plug away with machinehistory.com and others, maybe someone will appreciate it. Wish I did have a "panel of experts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuzi (talk • contribs) 03:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Daniel, I'm only one guy, with one interpretation. I think the next step is to take your case to Reliable sources/Noticeboard where these kinds of issues are discussed. I'm perfectly willing to bow to consensus if editors who comment there are okay with your scans. I will initiate a thread discussing your case. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup/History/2012/Submissions/Binksternet
Hey, I'm afraid I have removed Nilsson Sings Newman from your submissions' page, as I do not feel that you have done significant work on the article this year. The full extent of your edits to the article this year can be seen here and here, and are quite minimal. While I have no doubt that the work you did was valuable and that the article warrants its GA status, I do not feel that you can claim points for it in the competition. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the rules that you helped write do not appear to me to support the removal. The rules say:
 * "Content must have been worked on and nominated during the competition." That is true for Nilsson Sings Newman and me. I worked on it this month.
 * "All reviewed content must have been worked on significantly by you..." That is true, too, as I have worked signficantly in the past on the article, bringing it from 2 kb to 12 kb in size.
 * "You may usually only score points in a round for content which has been promoted, or reviews which have been completed, in that round." This is true, as the GAN was submitted this month, the review completed this month, and the article promoted this month.
 * I submit that the rules need to be edited to conform to your actions. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to do significant work on the content during the competition. I think that's pretty clear from the rules as written ("All reviewed content must have been worked on significantly by you to receive additional points", while "you may not claim points for articles you have not worked on during the competition"), and it has also been made clear in messages sent to participants. (In the welcome message posted further up this page, for instance- "One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.") I suppose you may say there's the discrepancy between needing to do work on the article this year, and significant work overall; if this is the impression you got, I apologise, but that's never been the rule (though topics are slightly different). I have made a small edit to reflect this. J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification and the edit to the rules. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Perfect timing, and much appreciated. ^_^
 * Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, no problems. It's good to be able to acknowledge other Wikipedians' hard work. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 03:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

James Tod FAC
As you are someone who contributed to the article, I thought that you should know that it is now at Fac. Scary. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was looking forward to this time in the knowledge that I could help review it! I'll see you at the FAC page. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am pleased to read that someone was looking forward to it! Your comments at GA were very useful and hopefully will see fruition at as near to the top of the tree as we get here. If it does, then stick a star somewhere: you have assisted enormously. - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary
Thanks! =D But without your help and from others, this would be surely not as great as currently. Hooray!-- ♫GoP♫ <sub style="color:red;">T <sup style="color:red;">C <sub style="color:red;">N 16:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Rosie the Riveter
While I'm probably not going to work on a new Rockwell article at this time (deep in a mire with the usual crop of tendentious editors), are there any sources you can recommend from your work on We Can Do It! that might be useful for such an article? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course you would want cite numbers 29 through 32 as found at Rosie the Riveter. Beyond those, cite number 26 is good, and the Bird & Rubinstein book cites Rockwell writings but none of this is visible on Google books.
 * Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, maybe I can get it from a library. Thanks! I'll let you know if I do it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

An award for you!

 * Haha! What a brilliant idea for an award. It warms the cockles and the ovaricles of my heart. Thank you very much! Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

men's rights
hello,

can you explain the situation to me? if we accept that sources can be non-NPOV (e.g. the page cites books by MRAs) then why do you keep removing the comments by other notable MRAs like Glenn Sacks? Paintedxbird (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, the Glenn Sacks blog is an expert blog, so it is notable. I did not see that earlier. What about the other cites? Binksternet (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

i'm disputing with cybermud over TGMP webzine. as both the owners and editors have been cited by reliable sources as men's rights activists and in other sections of the page. Paintedxbird (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

first/early flying machines
I see you've recently edited the 'early flying machines', including deleting & then reinstaing the merge tag. Since I'm fairly new to editing wp, I'm unsure about the mechanics & etiquette of merging articles, but a fecoupl of thoughts....
 * The chunk that you deleted i.e. the section of what constitutes a flying machine & a flight was the only section that distingushed the two articles. With that gone, there is no substantial diference between the articles.
 * Is the discussion on whether to merge a live one? I don't see much real debate on the issue. The only real bone of contention seems to be whether a discusion on the above point &c should be a separte article,or inorporated to this article. I favour the latter,for reasons given in the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs)


 * I restored the merge tag because I saw the discussion had an entry from a couple of weeks ago, which surprised me because the merge tag was much older than that. If the two articles are substantially the same they should be merged, of course. The stuff I deleted was uncited and appeared to be somebody's own analysis: original research. Binksternet (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've (sort of) merged the articles, which really only consisted if moving a couple of early claims (one very dubious) across. I'm afraid I couldn't figure out how to handle the tag on the talk page which links to an edit, if this iss important somebody more competant than me needs to sort this. I'm slightly concerned that the article now contains no discussion of varyin claims & their merits or whatever: if you look at the article history 'first flying machines' was originally a split from 'early flying machines'. Neither am I sure that the section you deleted was really original research: it was originally a very long and horribly tangled section, which I had done a certain amount of (fairly drastic)copyediting to make it comprhensible, and really I think it was only stating some fairly obvious ground rules.TheLongTone (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Parody music
We had a bit of a discussion a couple of years ago about this one. We sort of decided that we might write another article specifically about "humour in modern pop music" to supplement it, but this never came off in the end. Now someone wants to hijack the article for academic musical theory as opposed to general interest (at least that is my impression) and s/he and I have a dispute going. I would especially appreciate your opinion. Perhaps you will see in his argument something I am missing - perhaps in trying to write one article on this whole subject in one go I was always being a bit ambitious. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will take a look. Binksternet (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
 * was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
 * is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
 * was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
 * was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Phoenix (fireboat)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Phoenix (fireboat) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Dolphin ( t ) 11:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for choosing to review the article! Binksternet (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for nominating Phoenix (fireboat) for Good Article, and for being prepared to work through all the suggestions that were put forward during the GA Review. I have promoted the article to GA and listed it at Good articles/Engineering and technology.  Regards,  Dolphin  ( t ) 02:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fantastic! Thank you for your fine review. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

GAN Malloch Building
Hi,

I am reviewing your nomination and have asked a few questions at Talk:Malloch Building/GA1

Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Passed! Congratulations. Wonderful building. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Yay! Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have time for a FA review?
Hi. Thanks for posting a comment at Featured article candidates/Birth control movement in the United States/archive1 - that was about a week ago. I hope I replied to your comment in a satisfactory fashion. The article  has since been reviewed by one user (BrianBoulton), but it needs two more. Do you have time to do an FA review? I've been through the article with a fine-tooth comb several times. The article has been through a GA review and a Peer Review (with a focus on FA criteria) so it should be ready to go. I know you are busy, but any help at all would be appreciated. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have every intention of going through the article very thoroughly. I was waiting for the recent tweaks to settle down.
 * The above is written smiling even though it sounds crabby. :D
 * Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again. I was wondering if you have time to wrap up your review at  the FAC page?  If you are too busy, no problem. --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent article, fully deserving of FA status. Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disco Fever
Sources. Where are they? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Usually Google books is my source. Sometimes Google news. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then add some. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My internet access is slow as hell where I am today. Give me a day and I'll add one or two more cites. Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some more good ones added. Notability established, deletion avoided. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Malloch Building
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

GAN "We Can Do It!"
Hi,

I have passed your very nice nomination with just a few edits that you're free to change. See Talk:We Can Do It!/GA1 Good work! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow! Fantastic. Thanks for the review! Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Recognizability poll
Binksternet, since you participated in a previous poll on the wording of the "recognizability" provision in WT:TITLE, your perspective would be valued in this new poll that asks a somewhat different question: WT:TITLE. – Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Droping a line
Hi, I wanted to drop a quick line to both thank you for starting your GA review (I was expecting to wait for weeks) and to let you know that I've responded to (I think) most of the immediate concerns :) Failedwizard (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! I saw your notes and your article changes. Right now I'm working on a redlink that was bothering me but when I get that newborn article spanked and breathing I will turn once again to the GA review. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Quick thing - I think I've been responding fairly quickly to your feedback, but the next 72 hours might be a bit choppy with other commitments - feel free to let the comments pile up - I'm certainly still around... and I'll have lots of time at the weekend. Fayedizard (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! Binksternet (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Most recent changes made :) Fayedizard (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Request to weigh in on George Soros page
Hi! We have a bit of a dispute on the George Soros page with regard to tagging. I could be in the wrong, but would appreciate your expertise. Thanks. Sailingfanblues (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm always in favor of the practice that categories must be mentioned in the article, and the rule that ideas mentioned in the lead section should already be in the article body. The Soros/CFR connection deserves a bit of expansion in the article body or it deserves nothing. Binksternet (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Links
In this edit you gave several references without providing the links. Im trying to make a new proposal. Can you help with a new proposal? Pass a Method  talk  08:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you label the bare URLs so that readers can recognize them at a glance, you'll make it easier for talk page people to work with the list of sources. Binksternet (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Good work

 * Is there a reason you have not volunteered to be an admin? I've not dug deep in your contributions, but you strike me as the sort of person who would make a good admin.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  14:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the award and the kind words. I have not yet volunteered to be an admin because of my history of seven blocks spanning a little over three years, and because I have not generally been as nice to people as I was to Gandydancer in your link. Certainly, I'm that nice sometimes but other times I'm just brief or curt, which comes across as not very friendly. Furthermore, I have pissed off some editors who want very different results from Wikipedia than I want, for instance in regard to my adherence to the scholarly view on abortion topics, and on Catholicism, rather than bowing to political or hardline orthodox views. So, there are lingering concerns about my past editing style being too aggressive in terms of reverts, there are some editors who will surely vote to oppose, and there is still work for me to do to gain friends or at least objective supporters. Perhaps in the future I will throw my hat in the ring. For now, I will continue to help the project as I see fit. I strongly believe in Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah yes. Blocks. I do notice, however, that the blocks have been reduced or removed. The Wikipedia community do love it when someone shows they are capable of learning and of adjusting. Well, keep up the good work, and stop reverting!  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  18:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Disco Fever
Hello! Your submission of Disco Fever at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Drmies (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good job on the article, by the way. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your positive thoughts. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

New Coanda-1910 modifications
biskernet, you have a message on talk page there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.35.208 (talk • contribs)


 * My response is at Talk:Coandă-1910. I believe my direction is the best for the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
FYI, please see: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive243. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Disco Fever
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Arizona Pioneers' Home
The DYK project (nominate) 16:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Townsend Griffiss
Back in 2009 you added Townsend Griffiss to your to-do list. Griffiss was the subject of an excellent BBC article today, so I've created the article. Right now it's largely sourced from that one article, which is obviously not an ideal situation. Evidently back in 2009 you felt there was every likelihood that the article could be sourced. So if you have any sources that might help firm it up, even offline, even if they only corroborate what the BBC thing says, that would be very welcome. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine work on the new article. I will take a look to see if I can bring more sources and more text. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Grotrian-Steinweg
Hi,

Sorry about the screwup yesterday. I have posted a review at Talk:Grotrian-Steinweg/GA1. Basically it's a very interesting story, but hard for me to follow, I guess because of all the names, locations, relationships etc. Feel free to question me or comment on anything about the review.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry it took so long but congratulations on an interesting GA. Well done! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fantastic! Thanks for your diligent attention. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Tod FAC
I think that I may have to pull the FAC process for James Tod. Someone who is fairly lacking in clue is making the article unstable, in particular with regard to focus and mis-use of a source. Seemingly, all because they have a personal problem with me and others that dates to a clue-less (not clueless) ANI report that they filed last November. I am shocked that someone can do this but I think that I can always re-nom when the situation has calmed down. Am I correct in that thinking re: re-nomination or is it a one-time only process? - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think you should pull the FAC. It may pass despite the editor with whom you have many differences of opinion. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Been at hospital this afternoon and pondered it there, although unfortunately to no avail. I might sleep on it, assuming that I can actually get to sleep given the present state of my health! Three hours sleep in the last two days, so it may well be Temazepam time but I hate that stuff. Thanks for your opinion - very grateful indeed. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories & clarinets
I would love to see a different way of connecting related articles, rather than using the counter-intuitive approach of (e.g.) putting Clarinet in the category of 'clarinetists'. I made the same removal of a category a while back, and was told that this is how it's done (see my talk page - there's a bass clarinet thing there). So, I'm not sure what's correct here, but there does seem to be some difference of opinion regarding policy. - Special-T (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess it is time to sort the old counter-intuitive practice across musical instrument articles. Toward that end, I posted a thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musical_Instruments. Please weigh in with your opinion there. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. There may not be a better way to do this, or there may be. Looks like we'll find out! - Special-T (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum
You should avoid this type of comment in the future. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, little brother. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Why, thank you! You are a pleasure to work with. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Madonna
Psst! Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But looking at her work over three decades, I feel that she has constantly conveyed a message of empowerment to women - that women don't have to seek approval before doing something, &#91;&hellip;&#93;
 * &mdash;


 * Thank you. I was aware of the article. See my note at User_talk:Legolas2186. Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Wings Club
Orlady (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick query
So in your follow up comments (which were great) for the GA at stephen_hawking you mentioned "More work needs to be done so that all the papers, books and cites use the same punctuation, wikilinking, etc.," - would you mind giving a couple of examples? I think there might be something I'm missing here... :( Fayedizard (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of the articles do not display their titles inside quote marks, and some cited works are not italicised. An example of both problems: Professor Stephen Hawking quotes on God and Religion, Age of the Sage. Another example is The Observer (needs italics). The wikilinks for books and cites are not consistent. (There are two schools of thought about wikilinks in cites: a) every instance of something deserving a wikilink should be so linked, and b) link important things once per section.) Sometimes Running Press is wikilinked, sometimes not. Same with Bantam Press. (I just noticed that "Professor Hawking's Universe" is not listed under "Films and series".) Also, you will need a page number for the V-2 landing near the Hawking home in London (page 3, I think.) I expect that the Star Trek book will not be seen as important enough to be included in the Bibliography. Problems with punctuation included double periods such as the pair displayed in the http://www.chninternational.com/stephen_hawking_and_als.htm cite; in any case this copyvio cite should be dumped in favor of http://www.hawking.org.uk/living-with-als.html which is the original source. (This wattpad cite should be dumped and replaced for the same reasons.) Sometimes Guardian is capitalised, sometimes it is italicised, and sometimes it is written in web style as guardian.co.uk, and italicised. The BBC is not named as the sources in "The Stephen Hawking Building..." cite, and the notional article title is not inside quote marks. "St Albans School Website" is not the name of the cited page; it is "Hawking Lectures Sign Off with Dinner". In most cases, the date of the cited piece is in parentheses, but this is not the case for The Observer, the Charles Arthur piece, the "Man must conquer" piece, and the Cambridgenetwork.co.uk piece, which incidentally is titled "Time to unveil Corpus Clock", not "News from Cambridge UK". Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Basically, many of the problems with cites will be fixed if you take every single cite and put it into the cite template format, including the quote parameter for the two lengthy quotes. The dates will fix themselves, the italics will fall into place, and the quote marks around article titles. Incorrect titles will need to be investigated by hand, of course. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding wikilinks in cites, it appears that there are more than two camps. Discussion can be seen at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources. Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Atsuko Hashimoto Trio at Centrum 2007.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Atsuko Hashimoto Trio at Centrum 2007.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. Kelly hi! 22:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I uploaded that one quite a while back, in 2008 before I was familiar with all the image template possibilities. Your notice here on my talk page apparently did not come with any sort of leeway or grace period during which I could have updated the non-free fair use rationale. It appears that you notified me at about the same time that the image was being deleted. What good is that? Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic ban proposal for User:Youreallycan (ex Off2riorob)". Thank you. -- В и к и  T   00:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

NARA
Is there any chance you can do some scanning at the still pictures division at NARA? I have a rather large request at WP:GLAM/NARA/Requests that I'm attempting to work on through alternate venues (emailing around, sending letters to the generals, etc.) but I feel that NARA is the only option for find most of these names. Let me know if you are able to help. Thanks, – Connormah (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about uploading photos of four-star generals? The discussion from July and August last year? I typically work on a single biography article at a time rather than working on batches of photos for uploading to multiple articles. I am mostly interested in distilling references into encyclopedic prose, and I usually upload images as an adjunct to articles that I am busy writing. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that one. Some of them could use some improvement, if you're interested, as well, though I've been trying to get these photos for a while. – Connormah (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I will look to see if any of the desired images can be uploaded as part of a possible new biography for me to write. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

For future reference
I'm not an admin and I don't move-protect pages as if the template does that work. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  05:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I am unfamiliar with the template. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop disrupting Wikipedia with such edits. Just because you can't understand music sheets the sheets don't become "unreliables". Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  18:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My bachelor's degree is in music—I can read music well enough for our purposes. I consider my changes to be an improvement to the articles involved; I am not trying to disrupt Wikipedia but to improve it by adhering to its guideline at WP:SYNTH.
 * As an example, here is the stuff I deleted from Video Phone (song). It includes removing an assertion that the song was in A minor and its tempo was 120 bpm. The indicated Musicnotes.com website says nothing about 120 bpm and it says the song is in Eb Major.
 * A second example is the song Ray of Light (song). I removed the bit that said, "According to Musicnotes.com, Madonna's vocals on the song span from B♭3 to F5". The website does not say that Madonna used that vocal range, only that the song does, as published.
 * Third example: at Angel (Madonna song), I removed some stuff including the bit about the tempo being 120 bpm. The Musicnotes.com website does not say 120 bpm, it says "medium tempo". It does not say anything about Madonna's voice range, and it does not state plainly that "The song has a basic sequence of Dm7–Em7–F–Dm7–Em7–F as its chord progression." To me, it looks the chord progression is Am7–Bm7–Cmaj7, repeated six times on the first page of the sheet music. The synthesis of the source here is the attempt to identify the chord progression even though there are other chords visible. Was the editor looking at a different part of the song than what is shown on the sheet music sales site (without purchasing)? I don't know. Perhaps the chord progression is simply incorrect as it appears on Wikipedia.
 * At the article "Causing a Commotion", I removed all of the Musicnotes material. I could not find the song listed at Musicnotes.com and I suspected the same sort of synthesis I had seen previously from the same series of song articles. My suspicion was heightened by the cite being to "Who's That Girl" rather than "Causing A Commotion". Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

GA nomination for Gordon P. Saville
Greetings, Binksternet! I'm just letting you know that I'll be reviewing you GA nomination of Gordon P. Saville. Here is a link to the discussion. I wish this article best of luck! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, great! Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion
Please see User talk:Jweiss11. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion article titles notification
Hey Binksternet. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  22:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer review
Just wanted to pop by and say thank you for your detailed peer review on the sources for stephen_hawking - I'm working my way up your list, feel free to check back and look over my shoulder in case I've misunderstood something... Fayedizard (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Jim Goad
How are those blockquotes insightful? They do nothing but promote Jim Goad by attaching his name to famous fans. Other authors on Wikipedia do not have this done for them, and I don't see why you feel Mr. Goad is special enough to warrant an exception. TheNate (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As for my reasoning, I'll refer you to the Wikipedia style guide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles

I am acting in accords with my understanding of these generally accepted policies when I remove these quotations. If I am in error, please show me where. TheNate (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This discussion should be at Talk:Jim Goad. See you there. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Pro-life feminism". Thank you. --PeRshGo (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Shove your "warning"
I did not engage in "edit war" -- you and your buddy (or sock puppet) -- twice backed-out my contribution to the Planned Parenthood page, because the facts I added, while indisputable, cast bad light on the organization's founder. I don't know, why you prefer the organization's reputation to the historical truth, but it was you, who backed-out my patently non-vandalism changes. Twice. It is perfectly obvious from this and the other disputes you have ongoing, that you have your own -- and very strong -- pro-abortion opinion, and your point-of-view clouds your judgment. I urge you to abstain from editing such controversial (for you) topics entirely.

The following applies to you (much) more than to me, because I did not remove anybody's contribution, you did:
 * [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Planned Parenthood. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please note that Planned Parenthood falls under the Arbitration ruling covering all abortion topics, limiting editors to one revert per day. See the top of Talk:Planned Parenthood for details.''
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

пан Бостон-Київський (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your contribution was removed once by me and once by another editor, and rightly so. You tried to use a single sentence from Sanger's autobiography to paint the whole Planned Parenthood organization in a bad light. You interpreted Sanger in a manner conflicting with scholarly interpretation, which sets Sanger's motivation as trying to alleviate the childbirth and too-large family hardships of low income women in a manner already available to women of means. Sanger was a champion of the working woman. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Salute

 * I wanna show you the interview of Bobby Sanabria musician and historian niuyorrican and what he say about salsa, he says that salsa is an commercial name to all Cuban music.
 * And this other video he talk about Afro-Cuban jazz he let to know to everybody Mario Bauza created the Afro-Cuban jazz in 1943 and after that Gillespie adapted that music and 1947 with the Cuban percussionist Chano Pozo. I wait for your answer thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.137.49 (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This tree phrase it's the same thing Salsa gorda/Salsa dura/Salsa brava and this two other it's the same phrase too; Salsa romántica/Salsa monga why do you repeating yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.137.49 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NOR. You will need to quote a book about salsa history in order to put more ideas into the article. You cannot simply state that the article is wrong and that you are right. What books about salsa do you have access to? Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the Harvard dictionary of music, edited by Don Randel PAGE 25 Afro-Cuban jazz. and this is other book the name is Dictionary of Musicians Edited by Stanley Sadie second edition (agatea Mario bauza) page 211. Both books from the university says that the afro-cuban jazz was developed and created by Mario Bauza and nobody else thanks. Wait for your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.137.49 (talk) 02:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I provided you the accurate information that can be confirm with the reference i gave you and you stating that i vandalism the article. Why? the reference are reliable. Wait for your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.137.49 (talk) 03:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There are books that say Bauza was a key influence and books that say he was less important than Dizzy Gillespie. There are those who say that Machito was more influential than Bauza. The article should be written with all the best sources held in balance, not a couple of them chosen as the One Truth. There is no One Truth about Latin jazz, Afro-Cuban jazz, and salsa music. There are lots of truths. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My friend the books you read are not reliable,if you go to the library you could find reliable university books. None of the books from university in the United States designed to Dizzy Gillespie created the Afro-Cuban Jazz, if you keep reading those books unreliable'll never know the truth about Afro-Cuban jazz. Sir Latin jazz has two types of Latin jazz, Brazilian bossa nova and Afro-Cuban jazz But neither are the same in musical genre or country. They call Latin jazz these two types of jazz, one was created by Cubans in New York in 1943 and the other was created in Brazil. this is another reference from the University of California on Afro-Cuban jazz. is the same reference that someone put in the article of Afro-Cuban jazz, and also says that Mario Bauza created the Afro-Cuban jazz. Thanks and let me know what you think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.67.247.5 (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the various Latin jazz articles should be reworked with an experienced editor referring to many university books to get more breadth. I do not have the time to do this right now. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I could help you if you let me do it.


 * This is another video of salsa before Jerry Masucci and Johnny Pacheco called salsa all Cuban music. Officially in 1971, José Curbelo was born in Havana Cuba and this video is from 1954, in Cuba they call this music son montuno or guaracha. listen this music please, the discography do not lie.68.67.247.5 (talk)


 * José Curbelo sun sun babae 1952.


 * Roberto Faz was born in Habana, album recorded in 1957 salsa before the 70's. Tito Puentes always said, I've always played Cuban music. the discography do not lie.68.67.247.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Hope you don't mind if I slip this in here...  Gandydancer (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was, again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was, thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were, , and. February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from. At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)