User talk:Binksternet/Archive4

Apologies
Hi,

Sorry about my mistaken reverts of your recent edits at Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor. This was my mistake, for which I do apologize. See details at User talk:Wtmitchell. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No sweat! ...just part of the fun and games here. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Plasma display, etc.
Cheers for removing the unsourced image added by Celebration1981 (who also edits as 77.111.185.112), but don't be surprised if it returns with a dubious citation. I've had more grief from this guy than I care to mention. You only need to view the History of television Talk page to see for yourself. I've yet to report him (assuming it is a "him"), but if he starts another edit war over some dubious claim, with all the ad hominem attacks that go with it, I very well may. The Electric motor Talk page is another place you'll find his nasty comments. See his Talk Pages (above) for a list of warnings and an idea of how loose he plays with Wiki guidelines.

Just thought I'd give you a "heads up".

Best, Rico402 (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hahaha American Nationalist Rico and his comrades :)))))))) --Celebration1981 (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, looks like fun. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, didn't anticipate that he'd follow me here. My apologies. Rico402 (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Source of Nanking Massacre controversy
Hello, Binksternet. I wish your comment regarding the caption on the image of Iwane Matsui. Please visit Talk:Nanking Massacre controversy. Sweeper tamonten (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I responded on the Talk page. Binksternet (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

your message
Thanks for your message. I agree with you, and you should delete most other links. Who are you to judge what a relevant link is' when essentially all the links I see are ? The link I placed provides more practical resource about high end audio, especially for DIYers.

If feel the link I placed is 'inappropriate', please delete the other ones too.

I can do it myself, but felt this not to be in the spirit of integrity, impartiality or, indeed, fair.

Kindest regards

Zabadac (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you feel other links are not appropriate, take them out. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks
Zabadac (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, having read the guidelines again, I thought that it would be best to do this to clean things up.

Seems like someone is dedicated to keeping the commercial links in though.

I've reported this activity.

Help me, please...
User Nukes4Tots is attempting to bypass rules and regulations by attacking my credibility... he has changed a page in the military history section of the site, and he and I have argued back and forth as to the merit of his edit, and instead of behaving profesionally, he has clamied that I'm edit warring with him because I pointed out that his edit needed referencing... I really need help with this guy... this -> <- is what I mean... Magus732 (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My sympathies... I've had much the same problem -- see Plasma display, etc. above. I'm going to prepare a summary of all the violations I can document on the part of the guy who's been harassing me for about a year -- under three different Usernames -- and submit them to an administrator. Can't see how I can help -- of course it's not me you're asking it of. Just commiserating I guess. Best of luck! Rico402 (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Casa del Prado Theater.jpg
File:Casa del Prado Theater.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Casa del Prado Theater.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir Horowitz
I've made some revisions to the sexuality section on Horowitz. The anonymous editor really twists Dubal's remarks on Horowitz. Also, Dubal only knew VH briefly, when the pianist was in his 80s, so he would have hardly been expected to have a sex life at all. (I know on good authority that VH was not sexually active after 1980, when a botched prostate operation left him impotent. But I can't put it in the article because it's not verifiable by Wiki standards.)  Also, Plaskin's book is far better researched than Dubal's rather self-serving bio. He had far more than the Rubinstein interview to go on. Cheers.THD3 (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good going, I agree with your most recent changes. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI (Nanking Massacre)
(copied from Talk:Nanking Massacre

A few months ago, this information was displayed prominently as its own section, including multiple quotes describing "the horror of it all". I was User:Vertigo893 at the time, and I looked up the Wikipedia article on the event and discovered that it had been declared a hoax. I removed the quotes, added the info and the link, and left the editors here to make of it what they would.

Yesterday I returned to this page out of curiosity to see what had been done with the info. At first I thought it had been removed. Through careful scouring of the page, paragraph by paragraph, I eventually found this:

"Perhaps the most notorious atrocity was a killing contest between two Japanese officers as reported in the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun and the English language Japan Advertiser. The contest was covered much like a sporting event with regular updates on the score over a series of days. In Japan, the veracity of the newspaper article about the contest was the subject of ferocious debate for several decades starting in 1967. This "contest" is regularly presented as historical fact, for example, in an exhibit at the Nanking Massacre Memorial. The historicity of the event remains disputed in Japan. In 2000, Bob Wakabayashi concurred with certain Japanese scholars who had argued that the contest was a concocted story, with the collusion of the soldiers themselves for the purpose of raising the national fighting spirit."

This is ridiculous. It is already established that the entire article violates WP:NPOV in every conceivable way, and this is just another example.


 * The section begins "Perhaps the most notorious atrocity..." The reader is not informed of any issues with the facts until midway through the paragraph.
 * Wakabayashi did not concur with any "certain Japanese scholars". This is a weasel word.
 * The debate over the veracity of the contest was not restricted to Japan, as the article implies.

As I continue to pour over this article and its talk page, I am seeing a recurring pattern. The article, and others relating to the massacre, all seem biased towards Chinese nationalism. Compared to recent events... I do not want this to escalate into what the Scientology issue did, but something has to be done.

I have placed a bounty on this page pledging $20 U.S. dollars to Wikimedia if the article reaches GA status, which it will never do without some serious work. I can only hope that certain editors are more interested in improving Wikipedia than they are in pushing their own POV.

Regards, just a little   insignificant  17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I wish good luck to any who can unravel the mystery of that event. I don't think you'll be spending your $20 any time soon, though. Me, I'm not expert enough to have an opinion—I just correct spelling problems and watch for formatting errors. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed, and thank you for your work. You seemed to be one of the people majorly involved the the article though, so I contacted you anyway. just a little   insignificant  01:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Super Audio CD again
Our Polish IP (83.24.0.0/16) is engaging in disruptive editing in Super Audio CD; he has reverted both your edits and my edits. I have already warned them that their editing behavior is a blockable offense. Please keep an eye on this article. Samboy (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, an admin has had to semi-protect the page again, this time for three weeks. Hopefully we will be able to resolve this content dispute in a fair and reasonable manner.  Back to getting more references to back up those  tags I put on the page.  Samboy (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP is now willing to talk with us on Talk:Super Audio CD since we currently don't let him edit the Wiki page. If you have time, I would like to have more editors talk with this IP who right now is really frustrated that the Super Audio CD article can not be edited by IPs.  Samboy (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm letting the 83 IP really get under my skin. I feel like I'm talking to a broken record; he keeps going on and on about how the Wikipedia SACD article is a scandal, continues to insult other edits even though I've brought up WP:NPA multiple times, and completely ignores our requests for references or us pointing out that the statements in the article do by and large say what the referenced articles say.  At this point, I'll just ignore him.  We may have to ask admins to IP-protect the SACD article for the foreseeable future, since his editing pattern is to revert the same stuff over and over and over again without listening to or engaging in dialog with experienced Wikipedia editors.  AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!  Thanks a lot for your support.  Samboy (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, take it easy!  ... ;^) ... Also, don't take out the IP's abusive language any more. Leave it in place so admins can see what the guy is like. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm taking it easy at this point. Should he come back, I'm just going to ignore him.  People like that, in my experience, are looking for a fight and the best thing to do is to not feed the trolls.  Should he start doing his edits again, I'll bring it up to the admins and it'll be necessary to IP-protect the page again.  You're right about not removing parts of his comments; I wasn't sure that was the right thing to do when I did it, and have now restored the parts of his comments that I deleted.  Samboy (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

US vs U.S.
I thought that US was the preferred abbreviation but the Manual of Style (abbreviations) does appear to dictate U.S. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And here I was thinking only that it should be consistent within each article. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bohemian Grove
The Cremation of Care can certainly be called an occult ritual. From wiktionary - Occult: Secret; hidden from general knowledge; undetected. Would you prefer the word sinister? There is nothing kosher about presidents, corporate execs, politicians and media figures dressing in black, red, and silver robes in the woods to burn a human effigy in front of a 40 foot owl statue. The sinister nature of the Cremation of Care is just as significant in Bohemian Grove's controversy as the wealth and power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.97.22 (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL! If you had ever been there like I have you would know that it's a big frat party joke. No occult power, no spiritual call to the dark ones, nothing like that. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether I've been there or not, the fact remains: the cremation of care ritual is sinister and it is a big part of the controversy over the group.


 * Oh, I know it's a big part of the controversy, but I also know that the words 'occult' and 'sinister' have connotations that aren't applicable here. It's a theatrical presentation, nothing more. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The connotations of those words certainly are applicable. Are you saying that a theatrical presentation cannot be sinister or of an occult nature? How can you say that dressing in hooded robes in the middle of the woods, burning human effigies in front of a 40 FT owl statue is not sinister? The majority of the population would most definitely find these ceremonies sinister. EDIT: Sorry for the redundancy of the word sinister, can you give me some appropriate synonyms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.97.22 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am reporting censorship by this user, Banksternet--I mean, Binksternet. You can read about this censorship here. Sicjedi (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha! Yeah, I'm such a banker—I wish my net worth were greater than zero! Dude, I'm just an audio technician who assisted with three productions of the Cremation of Care in the early 1990s. I'm not censoring anything; I'm correcting you. Alex Jones got the words wrong: he got "carrion" from "fairy unguents" because he was rustling the camera's microphone too much and couldn't quite make out the actor's line later when he was editing. People hear what they want to hear... Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Censorship is censorship, and you are guilty of it twice. You do not own Wikipedia; it is a COLLABORATIVE project, so stop trying to DICTATE it's content. You did not address the concerns I raised above. Instead, you just continue with your misinformation. Sicjedi (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning for Dynamic range
Who are you, and why are you giving me this warning? I refuted the cited source. See discussion. Wispanow (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You've been reverting Dicklyon and myself on the Dynamic range page for three hours now and you're asking who I am? I'm the editor who puts reliable sources into the article. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you an admin?
 * I refuted the cited source. You are not able to read. ANSWER!

Wispanow (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your bold, all-caps demand can be taken as a personal attack. Please note WP:NPA. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are simply ignoring or unable to understand. Again, answer if you can. Wispanow (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * W, there's no need to personalize this; the discussion relevant to the article can be kept on the article's talk page, where Binksternet and I (as editors, not admins) have been trying help straighten out the issue. Dicklyon (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaker
I wrote a little bit about how a speaker works, and you moved it to the "history" section? Is this correct, that you think that how something actually works is not only not particularly relevant to its description, but that such operational explanation belongs... under the "history" section?

While I understand that you work in the business and deal with these things all day, it seems that your concern is more with style and shopping selection than any fundamental explanation of about how something actually works. In even an article about a topic in which you claim expertise, you appear to be replacing basic useful information with pamphlet reading. Thanks, -Stevertigo 07:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your unreferenced paragraph describing how a speaker works is the one I moved. You are mistaken about where it went: I put it in Loudspeaker, not the history section. I also felt that the Terminology section you created by adding a heading and some text could better be put at the top of the page as one of the first defining paragraphs about what is meant by 'loudspeaker'. "Shopping"? "Pamphlet reading"? I don't see what you are seeing. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see you moved it first to the "history" section and then just yesterday to a new "electrical "characteristics""[sic] section. I think its a good article that is missing a certain basic introduction to the physics by which it operates. You do understand that all of the gear you use was invented by physicists and engineers (not "sound engineers") who's only important contribution was that they managed to figure out how to make the thing work. They did so by assembling a chain of certain physical forces into a machine that does work.
 * I think physics is interesting and that others who might see an article about a natural or even artificial physical object may also be interested in the basic physics behind it. Yes, speakers come in lots of shapes and sizes, and you can use different kinds of connectors to hook them up, and some speakers sound crappy while others sound transparent and clear, and separation of frequencies is important too, and, yes, terms like "impedance" and "ohms" were thrown in there to make it look cool, but the article didn't actually explain how the device works until I wrote the explanation. And you somehow think that how a thing like a speaker works is less important than its cabinet design and series wiring.
 * Unsourced? Here are the sections above the "electrical "characteristics""[sic] section that have no sources: The lead paragraph, the driver design section (including subsections driver types, full range, subwoofer, woofer, midrange, tweeter), the crossover section has only one source - a buyer's guide, actually. Nice. The enclosures and specificiations (top) sections each have only two sources - both legit, but sparse and covering only four specific points in sections that detail perhaps twenty each.
 * I'm curious now if you might also be interested in how a guitar pickup and a condenser microphone work. -Stevertigo 16:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You continue to be mistaken about my moving your material to History. The link you posted confirms that I moved it that one time to where continues to be now, in the section about electrical characteristics. Don't just examine the diff, examine the article below the diff.
 * Physics is certainly interesting and an explanation of 'how it works' is always applicable but I think new information added to the article should be referenced. A great many articles of general interest were composed wa-a-ay back when Wikipedia was a Wild West scene of people pouring out their personal observations, shooting from the hip. This one suffers from the echo of those times in that it is too-sparsely referenced. The way forward to make sure new material is cited. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I admit I misread the diff, which printed the "history" section header above the text of the "electrical characteristics" section. I apologise for this misread, and am sure you know it was an honest mistake. My other points stand, in that 1) you made an editorial decision to demote substantive content, and 2) did so based on your opinions about sourcing &mdash;that "echoes of those [past] times" linger on in unsourced material, that "the way forward" is to restrict new material, and (by direct implication) that old unsourced writing is acceptable. In keeping with your concepts, I am going to remove or fact tag all unsourced material in that article. You can make your case for not removing or hiding-until-sourced any such writing then. At such time I suppose you will have to intuit some kind of conceptual compromise between deletionism and inclusionism &mdash;demanding that all writing be sourced or else accepting such writing for its relevance and accuracy.


 * BTW, If you are interested in the physics behind music reproduction, there are some more physical transduction chains relevant to music listed at transducer, that need completion. I have started a few of them in the form (amplified signal → magnetic field → motion → air pressure). Regards, -Stevertigo 19:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Uruk2008
I just created Requests for comment/Uruk2008; it needs a second endorsement, so please endorse if you agree. Thanks, -- BenRG (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I only ran into the guy on one article, for one tiny edit war that didn't escalate. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:DigidesignProfile.jpg
File:DigidesignProfile.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Com DigidesignProfile.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"ref immediately follows punctuation"
Thank you for your correction here. "ref immediately follows punctuation" appears to be the style of choice in that particular article, and that style should be followed in that particular article; I did not follow that, and I thank you for the correction. "ref immediately follows punctuation", however, (trying to head off possible improper attempts to impose of that style rule elsewhere) is not a style guideline for Wikipedia articles in general (see WP:CITE). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Only visible parenthetical references such as (Hoffman, 2002, p. 23) are contained inside the phrase or sentence. Hidden references that use the 'ref' tag are placed immediately after punctuation. Here's a list of such examples: Citing sources/Example edits for different methods. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Upright
Actually, reading up on the reference, I've just learnt that the upright parameter is only for pictures that are taller than they are wide. Should I revert its use on the landscape-format images?  JN 466  21:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the intent, but the tool works for all images. Absent hard rules to the contrary, I say use the tool to do what it can do rather than what it was supposed to do. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. :)  JN 466  21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Walkman
I saw that you warned Parkerex awhile back about inserting badly sourced info at the Walkman page, he/she is back and doing it again. I don't want to break 3RR so I was wondering if you could help watch the page. Or do you think I should get an admin involved?  Whispe ring  03:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, the page is back on my watchlist. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool.  Whispe ring  04:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of template warning for User talk:Stevertigo
You recently left a template/standard message warning at User talk:Stevertigo regarding edit warring at the Loudspeaker article. You yourself currently appear to be engaged in an edit war at the same article. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period, and that using an impersonal template on a person's talk page to fein an authoritative or formalistic mode of being violates Wikipedia's informal WP:DBAD conventions. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, or fein meaningful communication though usage of standard/template messages, but instead use the article talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus with the editor(s) you have issues with. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Thank you, Stevertigo (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't template you, I typed out standard wording for a required warning because of the seriousness of the consequences. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

File:BusterKeaton-postage-stamp-AlHirschfeld.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:BusterKeaton-postage-stamp-AlHirschfeld.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. ww2censor (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

TV Interview
Dear Binksternet,

I am trying to locate contributors to Wikipedia who live in or near San Francisco and might be available for an on-camera TV interview next Thursday (6/25) about Wikipedia and what motivates you to contribute to Wikipedia. If you are interested please let me know. I am also looking for other Wikipedia contributors in the San Francisco area who would potentially be interested in doing this if you have any suggestions.

Thanks.

Lookingforcontributors (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Send me an email message with your phone number and I'll call you. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum
I extended the talk on Reductio ad Hitlerum, the Barbed wire-example. Also, I made a suggestion by an edit. Please take a look, it's not to start an editwar. -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Lindberg
Whats with "ugly wife" was her face. Whats with failing to indicate the fact that Hauptmann was framed? Beleive it or not, the truck driver who found the body was urinating (taking a piss). Read the book by Ludovic Kennedy if you doubt this. If after reading this book you still dont believe, you can blow it out of your ass. Lindberg was a pompous asshole, the only thing he got straight was his hatred for the Jews, who, we now know, are in the process of destroying America. Regards A.B. Moon (talk)


 * In editing the article, you failed on at least two points: WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. Right now you appear to be banging on WP:Vandalism and WP:Civility. You will probably want to tone it down or you'll get blocked. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

1953 Iran coup
My apologies. I always hate it when someone offering an impartial third opinion is asked for more of a commitment to the article than perhaps wanted, but slightly confused by your comment here:


 * Just in case anybody was tempted to use the word "consensus" again as part of their arguments, I have to say that I see no consensus here. The consensus is still being built: it is not pre-existing. What we have is text in flux. What we have is long-standing text which did not meet the needs of new editors; long-standing text which was faulty at root. The fact that an article has existed in one particular version for a period of time is no defense against new editors bring breathing new life into it. Being wrong for a long time means... you were wrong for a long time. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly correct in general, but... this seems aimed at me and the old lede? To clarify, I will note that I have never claimed to be in special position of the truth or my own consensus; that has been Skywriter, repeatedly. (I'll admit my last comment might have sounded close, but that was mostly due to my irritation with Skywriter constantly claiming he has the consensus.) And I certainly don't fault Skywriter for editing the article, but if the end result is worse than what we started with, we should obviously revert while incorporating the better parts of the new text. You say that the old lede was "faulty at root," though... just to clarify, but are you talking about this lede? Because an updated version of that is what I'm currently advocating. Apparently the Albright quote was a bit of an overstatement and has been removed, but it's basically factual and non-controversial (even to Skywriter - he agrees that a lot of the things in the new lede are true, just thinks the emphasis is wrong). It was Skywriter's revised ledes that had the major problems in my opinion, like this one.

If the answer is "Yes, I meant that old lede, not Skywriter's" that's fine, but I'd be interested in what you see is so faulty about it so as to improve it. Went to your talk page rather than the article talk page because I can't tell if this is my misunderstanding of your text or not. And again, my apologies about bugging you; I very greatly appreciate you being willing to look into the issue at all. SnowFire (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My comment was not directed at anyone in particular, and not specifically at you. I just find it stultifying to development and forward movement when editors cite prior consensus or long-standing versions as an argument. Consensus ceases as soon as someone questions the text. Me, I wish for the lede of that article to engage the reader and I wish it to contain a summary of all the upcoming details that they encounter in the main text. Nothing more nor less than you wish. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, we're in agreement then. I was using the "old revision" argument mostly to blunt the claims of "consensus," but I agree, quality is first. SnowFire (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin assistance at greenland related articles
I need some admin assistance on Greenland, Template:Prime Ministers of Greenland, Prime Ministers of Greenland and Kuupik Kleist where an POV warrior USER:Jægermester is still crusading against Greenlandic independence and adding unsourced defamatory material and ethnic slurs against the Greenlandic Prime Minister.·Maunus· ƛ · 03:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Donald Daedalus
I didn't know if you knew but your prod got removed on this page by the articles author. Just a heads up.  Whispe ring  09:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just wondering why the discussion is marked (second nomination) if it's the first nomination? Guest9999 (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not a regular at Afd... I figured prod + Afd = 2nd nomination. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not really the standard pattern, removed prodding is usually mentioned but the numbering only refers to actual discussions. I hope you don't mind if I move the discussion just to make it less confusing for those familiar with the convention. Guest9999 (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By all means, move it to make it standard. No worries. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Guest9999 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

1953 coup
[ copied from 1953 coup talk page] What do we do when after months of arguing there is no consensus, when very significant issues (cold war fears, domestic dissatisfation with the regime) are censored from the article, and when readers are not even warned of the dispute because POV tags are deleted? Should we go to mediation? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion at Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat, not here. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Spanish and Mexican land grants, ranchos, etc.
Thanks for the recognition. It is greatly encouraging. Emargie (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Two thumbs up! The value of your work is obvious to me, in the way it spills over into this and that article I have on my watchlist. Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the extra burnishing and polishing. I will have to find some place nice to put it.Emargie (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI/EW
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=298640883


 * I was aware, thanks. Pages I edit are automatically on my watchlist. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of The Rape of Nanking (book)
I have conducted a reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found one minor issue which needs addressing, you can see the review page at Talk:The Rape of Nanking (book)/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I'm one of those editors who believes that a ton of B-Class articles are more valuable to the encyclopedia than a few GA and FA articles. Still, if I have a chance, I'll go see if I can help maintain the one you indicate. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Bohemian Club category
Categories, especially concerning controversial topic like the Bohemian Club, should always reflect what's in the article. I see you've been adding Category:Bohemian Club members to biographies of lving people where there's no mention of the club, and hence no source. Please make sure that each biography contains a sourced reference to their membership.  Will Beback   talk    21:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, coming up. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. I'll hold off removing any to give time for adding the sources.   Will Beback    talk    20:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart
Hi, Binksternet, in answer to your query, I can only plead ignorance, as I did not see the previous deadlink edits in my one-person campaign to clean up. Please go ahead and restore the revisions to the proper standard. FWiW, a "senior's moment," I suppose... Bzuk (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC).

Viaduct or bridge?
I agree that one wouldn't ordinarily call the Cypress Structure a bridge. If you want to delete that category, go right ahead. --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page threading
Regarding moving talk entries: why did you reposition M's talk entry when you responded to it? I am not understanding your view of what makes a talk page readable. In my view, you orphaned M's comment when you responded to it. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The conventional method of replying to a talk page message is to place the new post below that message with one additional level of indentation:


 * This is message A. 01:00, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message B, a reply to message A. 01:05, 1 January 3000 (UTC)


 * If there already are one or more replies, the new post goes below those. The in-between messages don't interfere with the threading, as they are indented to the same or a greater level:


 * This is message A. 01:00, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message B, a reply to message A. 01:05, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message C, a reply to message B. 01:10, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message X, a reply to message A. 01:07, 1 January 3000 (UTC)


 * In the above example, message B and message C are irrelevant to the threading of message X . Message B and message X are on the same indentation level because both are replies to message A .  Message C is indented an additional level because it's a reply to message B .  Message X was posted later than message B was, so it appears lower on the page.


 * It might seem more intuitive to place a new post directly below the message to which one is replying, but this needlessly increases indentation and pushes down other replies that were posted earlier (which only makes the overall chronology more confusing). Here's an example:


 * This is message A. 01:00, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message X, a reply to message A. 01:07, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message Y, a reply to message X. 01:12, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message Z, a reply to message Y. 01:17, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message B, a reply to message A. 01:05, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message C, a reply to message B. 01:10, 1 January 3000 (UTC)


 * As you can see, message B and message C have been pushed below message X, message Y and message Z , despite the fact that message B and message C are down-conversation from the same post ( message A ) and were added earlier.


 * Now, here are the same posts without anyone cutting ahead in line:


 * This is message A. 01:00, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message B, a reply to message A. 01:05, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message C, a reply to message B. 01:10, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message X, a reply to message A. 01:07, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message Y, a reply to message X. 01:12, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message Z, a reply to message Y. 01:17, 1 January 3000 (UTC)


 * Every post is a reply to the first one above it with one less level of indentation. (It clearly can't be a reply to any of the other posts above it, as their indentation is the same or greater.)  And if someone else wishes to reply to message A, he/she needn't indent the post several levels more to make it fit.  The new post can simply go directly below the existing posts (with the same indentation level as message B and message X ):


 * This is message A. 01:00, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message B, a reply to message A. 01:05, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message C, a reply to message B. 01:10, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message X, a reply to message A. 01:07, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message Y, a reply to message X. 01:12, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message Z, a reply to message Y. 01:17, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message $, a reply to message A. 01:22, 1 January 3000 (UTC)


 * Otherwise, we would end up with this:


 * This is message A. 01:00, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message $, a reply to message A. 01:22, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message X, a reply to message A. 01:07, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message Y, a reply to message X. 01:12, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message Z, a reply to message Y. 01:17, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message B, a reply to message A. 01:05, 1 January 3000 (UTC)
 * This is message C, a reply to message B. 01:10, 1 January 3000 (UTC)


 * If you're unclear on any of the above, please let me know. —David Levy 01:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL... the last example, the bad example, is the way I see on so-o-o many pages. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Lava lamps
Hi - please dont take offence but I have reverted your recent deletion of my material on lava lamp. My perspective is from the UK so maybe we need some US input to balance it out. Please note none of my external links to the images were to the Mathmos website. I thought the images were an important part of an article about lava lamps which by their nature are very visual. If you dont like those images which would you propose instead ? Rod57 (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries; it's not personal. I'm discussing this at Talk:Lava lamp. See you there! Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Perfect talk
Comment for you about your additions. I'm sure you've read it already though. -Stevertigo 17:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Getting there... I have a long watchlist, but that discussion is on it. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've destroyed your concepts again at talk:perfect crime. See you there. -Stevertigo 15:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With an invitation like that, what are you looking for? I don't think Wikipedia means the same to you as it does to me. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought I was being both sincerely cordial and appropriately firm. I just saw though that you haven't reverted my last change to that article, so I guess I can just leave it alone too. Good day, -Stevertigo 17:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi There!
It seems that you are intrested in San Bernardino and the Inland Empire (California) area. Please see WikiProject Inland Empire and join if you like. It is a newly formed wikiproject that I just created so please cheak it out. Any questions contact me! Thank-You. House1090 (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:80.7.29.19
This anon seems to have issues with criticism of audio cable marketing claims. Guess he or she working on behalf of some company that doesn't like the sunshine.Bruno23 (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The truth hurts! Heh heh... Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ulderico Marcelli
Hi. Congrats on getting your article to DYK. I was looking through it and found a link to Sunland, California. This is a disambiguation page. Do you know which is the correct target? -Lilac Soul (Talk • Contribs) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 15:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know exactly! This source and this source were where I got the Sunland bit; neither source clears the ambiguity regarding which "Sunland". This book source places Rico Marcelli (p.226) and Audrey Call (p.182) at 10253 Sunland Blvd in Roscoe, California, in the year 1933. Roscoe appears to be a historic name for a section of Sun Valley, Los Angeles, California. That, or Sunland, Los Angeles, which still has a large house on a large lot at 10253 Sunland Blvd, at the corner of Nohles Dr., just west of today's 210 freeway, beyond the western border of today's Sunland and pushing into the Shadow Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles. Roscoe changed its name to Sun Valley in 1948, but I wonder if the historic Roscoe area was so large that it included Sunland and Shadow Hills at that time... Fast forward to 1962 when Marcelli died: the couple could have moved anywhere, but I'm guessing they stayed at or near their home in Roscoe. I'm guessing the Sunland in the Marcelli biographical material refers to a 1962 version or a casual usage of Sunland, Los Angeles, California. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeah, you guesses seem likely, but probably not enough to decide from. Wow, ambiguous placenames are annoying! -Lilac Soul (Talk • Contribs) 06:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

False Accusations
My recent edit appears to have been incorrectly reverted for false accusations of vandalism and has been reverted. No new information was added therefore there is no reason to cite references or sources. If you actually review the edit you would note that the change was simply algebraic manipulations to two related formulas and a space being inserted between an integer and its unit. Thank you. 98.185.132.213 (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the vandalism revert! I guess I'm losing my WP:AGF edge after seeing so many tiny vandal changes to quantities. Instead, I should have reverted because the previous version is constructed more clearly for the beginning math and music student. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Seeing the twelfth root of two as a constant in the equation being raised to an exponent is more beneficial for anyone reading. It makes it more clear that the twelfth root of two is being multiplied by itself and the reference pitch.  The previous version is poorly constructed in that it is not simplified being that it has a twelfth root written as an exponent containing a fraction as would be acceptable in mathematics as advanced as calculus.  Let's make this easier to comprehend.  Thanks.  98.185.132.213 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)