User talk:Binksternet/Archive7

Regarding 1953 Iranian coup d'état‎‎
You are well aware that we had a mutual agreement on 1953 Iranian coup d'état‎‎ that all major edits need to be discussed ONE by ONE PRIOR to implementation. Ray failed to do this, he had also tempered with, and removed well-sourced material. So your revert is totally unacceptable, and contrary to your own pledge to work within the agreed-upon framework. If you had forgotten about the agreement, I can live with that. But if you revert again, I will request full protection for the page, given the fact you're ignoring the provision we had all agreed to abide by. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't see RayAYang's edit as being major—I saw it as being an incremental step toward neutrality. The wording was changed from incendiary choices like "all-powerful monarch [...] with an iron fist" to "in control". Which one of those do you think is neutral? Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * RayAYang is a new editor to the page. He did not take part in the one-line-at-a-time agreement at the beginning of August 2009. When he made his multiple constructive edits today, I simply supported his version against your reversion.
 * You say you will request full protection if I revert twice, yet you have already reverted twice? How impartial... Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Bohemian Club images
Hello Binksternet!! I saw that you posted these pictures in the main article of Bohemian Club Unfortunally, these pictures cannot be used in others Wikis, because you uploaded directly in the Wiki En... :-( If don´t mind, please, could you put these pictures on Wikimedia commons..?! If you don´t know how, i can make it, like i made with this (for exemple)... Many thanks in advanced!! Light Warrior  Conspiracy?!?  03:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't speak Portuguese, so I would lose control of how the image was portrayed if I allowed you to use it in regard to Brazilian wiki pages, especially conspiracy theory pages. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * is simple to make the transference, as I did... You can do yourself on Wikicommons as a owner of yours photos anyway. On Wiki portuguese, we don´t have yet, the option to use the fair use images... :-( If you will authorize me, sure, i will put you name (of course), as i made like the same exemple as i showed you.  This portuguese pages about Bohemian Grove/Club, is not yet make...But i will make that pages. Thanks. Light Warrior  Conspiracy?!?  00:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle abuse + 3RR warning
Please do not abuse Twinkle to make non-vandalism reverts, as you have been doing on 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Doing that is grounds for blacklisting or being blocked. Please see Twinkle. You are also on verge of violating WP:3RR. consider this a warning. --Kurdo777 (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Twinkle was not being abused, my friend. What you saw in this and this edit were two edits that reverted to RayAYang's previous version. Any editor is able to do this without Twinkle simply by performing a null edit on the old version and saving it. I could have chosen to do that, but I have Twinkle installed which makes it one step easier. There was no abuse of Twinkle.
 * As for 3RR, I see your warning and warn you back. You, too, are on the edge of violation, as is common on the 1953 Iranian coup d'état page where editors must act repeatedly for any change to occur. Beware of overdoing your sense of ownership of the page. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not suppose to use Twinkle in content disputes, not matter how much "easier" it would be for you. You abused the tool, there is no justification. If you use Twinkle in a content dispute again, you will be blacklisted/blocked. --Kurdo777 (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the guidelines to say that your assumption is incorrect. I see that editors such as myself who use Twinkle take full responsibility for each edit, and abusive editors who are Twinklers can be blocked from using it. I don't see anything about not using it in content disputes, especialy since the exact same edit can be performed without it. Can you point me to the policy or guideline that you are using as reference? Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

B-52
I noted that you have challenged the validity of my statement that the B-52 is the largest aircraft to achieve an aerial kill. What aircraft are you claiming places this record in doubt? - Ken keisel (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

BV-222
I also note that you are challenging the claim that the BV-22 was both the largest aircraft to achieve an areial kill and the largest aircraft to be shot down during the war. Please place your evidence that this is incorrect on the discussion page or the challenge will be removed. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Razzie template
I agree with the comment you made here. Cirt (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See also and . Cirt (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I considered the entire discussion re: infoboxes parameters and various comments of support not to include Razzies regardless of the outcome of all the rest of the discussion, coupled with a consistent effort by members not to include them in filmographies, coupled with the fact that despite the existence of the templates (of which I was not aware), they were not being used, as consensus that we aren't using them. There are templates for at least four categories, none of which were on biography articles until a new editor added them to articles yesterday. "Bad faith parody" - yes, parody may be governed by free speech, but these awards aren't given by an organized group that is acknowledged as legitimate in bestowing industry or film awards. It seems to me that there was general agreement that they are more of a slur than any legitimate critical commentary. The Razzie awards are basically run by one individual and anyone who is willing to pay $25 to join the site is eligible to vote. There is no known vetting process for how the awards or nominations are determined and no oversighting of the nominations or voting process. These aren't film awards in the general sense of the term. The Wikipedia page for the awards fairly sums up the rationale that such shouldn't be listed with legitimate awards:


 * "The Golden Raspberry Awards, frequently called the Razzies, were created by John Wilson in 1980 (and first awarded in 1981), intended to counterpoint the Academy Awards by dishonoring (or honoring) the worst acting, screenwriting, songwriting, directing, and films that the film industry had to offer. The term raspberry is used in its irreverent sense, as in "blowing a raspberry."

I had already begun to nominate the templates for deletion and will continue on that path as soon as the deletion discussion page bug is worked out so that I can use the script to add them. If you don't think there has been general consensus for using these templates, I would be completely happy to open a discussion regarding them. Doesn't it seem odd to you that these would sit unused if they were accepted by the community as valid? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They were unused previously because the user had created them to then add them to the parent pages - to my knowledge no one had yet added them to all the individual pages before. The consensus was only with regards to Template:Infobox actor, and was not applicable to all other aspects, that is stretching it. It is a legitimate form of parody, and it is an awards ceremony that regularly receives a significant amount of coverage in independent reliable secondary sources - both during the period of the awards ceremony each year - and also in commentary on films, filmmakers, and actors. Cirt (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The user who created them was indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of a previously banned user, as I discovered when I looked for the creator (and you yourself blocked). This is valid commentary for discussion about notability or a deletion discussion for an article about the Golden Raspberry Awards, but not to argue for the use of a template navbox on individual pages. There are far more notable legitimate awards that don't yet have a navbox template that are far more relevant to an actors career than an award that advertises itself as the ones who BITE Hollywood's butt instead of kissing it! In any event, as I said, I'm quite willing to bring this up for discussion at WP:ACTOR. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the user being blocked, or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, are really relevant here, or helpful and constructive in the discussion. Cirt (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's something I noticed, and was a response to your comments regarding the template creator's intent. But thanks for taking the admin line of response. I'm not sure why this has taken this tone, but I'm not liking it. And I apologize for it carrying onto this talk page. I won't post more here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree about the tone, thank you for acknowledging that. Cirt (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

<=I started a discussion to gain consensus here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers. See you guys there! Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for starting the discussion at that new subsection Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers. Much appreciated. :) Cirt (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

White noise
What is the sound of a television set to a channel with no signal-the loud noise- is it white noise? See Snow (television); it doesn't say. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not exactly. In-between-station-noise can be made up of fragment of signal from nearby stations, so it tends to emphasize voice frequencies rather than being perfectly random. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The TV snow page says it's (the video I guess, not the audio) electronic noise from the TV's compnents itself and other appliances in the house. That's what it says about the video; it doesn't mention the audio; it seems like it would since it's so damn loud and well-known. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bose Products Merge
Thanks for your input into the AfD for Bose stereo speakers et. al. As you may have seen, the result was No Consensus. I have started a discussion to find consensus on merging all of these articles together. Feel free to contribute your opinions here. Thanks! talk 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

one the quote in Benny Goodman's article
You removed a phrase that someone added from the article about Hampton. I think you did it on the basis that (taken literally) it is claiming Goodman opening the doors of baseball to black people. I don't know much about the topic. I was reading the article when I noticed the quotation that needed to be Wikified. I think that the phrase is not used in a literal way. After all they were both musicians. I think is more like a humorous statement having some bit of true by Hampton. It also suits the topic in the previous paragraph at where it was placed. If you want you can reconsider reverting the edit under this basis.  Franklin.vp  04:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What was the context of Hampton's quote? What was his relationship with Goodman? Where was Hampton when he said it? Who was there to hear it? What do people think it means? Any kind of scene-setting information would shed light on Goodman and Hampton. Without context, the quote just sits there teasing the reader with its incomprehensibility. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Odas Moon
Bink: good article on Odas Moon, and nice find on the NYT article regarding his death. (I'm racking my brain about where I read about him dying in an air crash.) A much needed addition to the accumulating history of USAF. I'm currently working up one on Earl Naiden, also of the ACTS, who definitely did die in a crash in 1944, but the end story is obscure. Was he reinstated to brigadier general after his reduction in November 1942? The family thinks so, but that's how families are. I doubt if Congress or the WD would have been so inclined, but he was Old Army, so you never know. Was he wing commander at Redmond, or was he flying there from Louisiana to, as the family says, "visit" a newly engaged relative. (If so, why with his staff? And on what pretext?) Was there "financial impropriety", and if so, what source documents it? Or did he mouth off to a Brit general as also alleged? If you have any sources answering any of these, please drop me a note on my talk page.--Reedmalloy (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We need a mole in the Pentagon's personnel records department! Heh heh... Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bose wave systems
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bose wave systems, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

HDCD see also link
Audiophile1 (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Audiophile1 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC) - FAQ Mircosoft's deleted site FAQ: http://web.archive.org/web/20041204171913/www.hdcd.com/about/whatisHDCD.html Goodwin's: http://www.goodwinshighend.com/music/hdcd/hdcd_faq.htm - HDCD Process Overview Mircosoft's deleted site: http://web.archive.org/web/20041012200243/www.hdcd.com/partners/proaudio/index.html http://www.goodwinshighend.com/music/hdcd/hdcd_process.htm
 * How are the link I added in HDCD promotional??? HDCD is very hard to find information on and this site has tons of great information, please explain
 * Why did you mark the links as vandalism??? How is the vandalism??  They are valid links to great information
 * Another note the microsoft's (the owner of HDCD format) site hdcd.com has been down for about two years now, The goodwin's site contains a great deal of information that was listed on the MS site about HDCD
 * Here are direct links showing the content on goodwin's site are almost direct copy of the content from microsoft's now removed \ deleted site, you can see why I am offended that you marked my addition to the HDCD page as vandalism

So do you want me to link to web archives instead, either way how is this vandalism? Audiophile1 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked at your addition of three Goodwin pages as external links and I immediately thought to myself that this was promotional in nature, so I reverted your edits. I'm sorry that I didn't look at your addition more carefully, and just take out the redundant listings under "See also" as well as all the Goodwin links. I see the inclusion of those links as promotional because it appears to me to be trying to get more traffic at the Goodwin site. The links are already promotional in nature because the pages were modeled after hdcd.com's versions, as evidenced in your comparisons. The information is sometimes wrong, too, as in "HDCD recordings will always sound better than conventional CDs when played on any CD player. You will hear fuller, richer sound on all types of players, from portables to high-end systems." The audibility of the improvement that HDCD brings isn't so certain as all that. Few people will be able to spot the difference.
 * The difference is definitely debatable but it is written like this because that is taken from the Microsoft page. I had no idea how HDCD worked until i found the goodwin's pages, I then found that they are just reporting the dead Microsoft information.  I will re-add links to the wiki page but use the web archive link to Microsoft's information and specify that so it will not appear a promotional traffic generating link.  HDCD is licensed from Microsoft so links to Microsoft's old pages is definitely relevant to the article especially because they provide more information on the technology then available in the wiki article.
 * I just took offense to marking the information as vandalism. If you have any future changes I make, I am more then happy to discuss my reasoning or modify anything that is seen as inaccurate or promotional. Audiophile1 (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My position on the Goodwin URLs is that, if the links provide worthy information that isn't in the article, put that information in the article and use the Goodwin page as a reference. There's no need to put in external links just for the sake of having some, per WP:EL. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, it might help the reader more if there were article text explaining the differences and similarities between HDCD and the other "See also" listings you added under the line "Other higher fidelity music formats:"... It's like "See also" is trying to be a section called "Other high end formats" or a link to a page called Comparison of high-end consumer audio formats. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this information should be added to the HDCD article or another article but it still is relevant to post links to other Wikipedia articles on similar high fidelity formats as HDCD is considered a enhanced fidelity format. I will re-add the see also links, if you disagree please discuss.  Take a look at Super_Audio_CD or other high fidelity wiki articles like DVD-audio and you will see they all link to other high fidelity formats, it is a great way for readers to learn what other formats are available to them Audiophile1 (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need to have the archived HDCD.com links presented as external links. Again, if information contained on those pages is so useful, why is it not brought to this article and the URL used as a reference? On the other hand, if the archived pages contain information that is already present here, of if their information is not useful, the need for those links disappears. Both ways, the links aren't needed. External links are useful when information of a far more detailed nature is presented, or copyrighted information. The guideline is at WP:EL. Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea it should be added to the article but I still do not know enough about HDCD to be the one to do it that, I feel these links should remain until someone does add this information. Here is my justification for this, under what should be linked in WP:EL "1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below."  The links I provided are to the microsoft's official site on HDCD so this complies to rule #1.
 * Here is another rule from the "Official links" section of WP:EL that also make these two links applicable "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking." Microsoft HDCD is the subject of this article so this is Mircosoft's official documentation on the standard.  There is also some great PDF's on MS's site about the details of HDCD  Audiophile1 (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Loudspeaker enclosure
All right I changed the picture. Oh yeah; what are the "rules" about left alignment; why is it almost never used? Is it appropriate if you want two pictures in a subsection with room for only one without expanding the section beyond the text? Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Left alignment can't be used directly underneath a section heading, because some browsers go nuts with that. Put left alignment a paragraph below a heading. Left alignment is recommended with images that face right, like people's noses or vehicle noses going to the right side of the image. It's never required, though. Left alignment on large images can bump down into the next section heading and force that heading away from the left wall—some people don't like that and some don't mind. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Flickr>Wikipeida
I have a lot of new pictures on Flcikr; any you want on Wikipedia just tell me. Gonna go pro probably since I'm beyond 200; wanna buy me a pro account? It's something a lot of people do; because you get something out of it too. I don't know what but it always says "Give the gift of Flickr?" Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcadimensia/


 * No, I will not be buying you a Flickr Pro account. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Any photos you want; they are not webcam photos; anymore; I have a decent 10 MP camera; it takes great pictures; not great videos though. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You know; it's not really fair; over old grudges; to be so blatant and rude without giving me a chnace; what if I was a recording major and I had a potential to upload copious pro audio material. What if FLCC was a music school? Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What old grudges? I was short with you but not rude. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Image size relevant to window size
How did you do that; cause I was messing around and I realized how it messes it up extensively it the size changes. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the upright parameter tied with the thumb parameter. See Extended image syntax. Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It didn't work actually; here's what it looks like in my browser- Safari not that it matters. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your browser
It must look very similar in your browser, too? Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Cast vs. casted
You summarized
 * "cast" is past tense here

in rejecting my use of "casted", to wit
 * ... and the network becoming the first to present a series so casted.

The terse version of my response is that you're right in the edit and wrong in the summary.[grin] And i'd think no ill of you (if i could know that) you read no further. Having researched, tho, my impulse is to write, and doing so here where it might be more keeps me honest in working thru the implications. I'll explain why i wanted "casted", but despite that, the three dictionaries i have available among my four favorites agree in their non-recognition of "casted":
 * "Cast" is not only the present tense, but also past and past participle tenses of "to cast", in all its many senses, which makes you right, and me humbled, about the article text.

On the other hand, and even tho your point was perfectly clear (which is the most important aspect), for the record the grammar here is that "cast" stands not as a predicate but as an adjective, and the past tense is applicable only as a predicate. I specifically used "so widely seen" in my examples because "to see" (like "to cast") is an irregular verb, and it exposes the past tense "saw" (corresponding to "cast") as spelled and pronounced differently, not just grammatically different, from the perfect-tense form "seen" (corresponding to -- uh, sorry -- "cast") that is required by the past participle grammatical role. Your error was to label "cast" as past tense, not just the irrelevant present tense; past and present were both irrelevant, and what we now agree should be "cast" is correct because it also the perfect tense. My use of "casted" was equally well-intentioned, but, as you note, visibly wrong, and if i haven't already exhausted your interest, i'll state where i went astray. I believe Steven Pinker when he says that irregular verbs are dying remnants of past linguistic mutation. "Be" and "been" have an almost identical relationship (not part of the modern English tense scheme) as "know" and "known", and "ride" and "ridden", but many of the forms of "to be" come from separate verbs whose etymologies reflect different metaphors for existence, or for equality to something else, or for being an example of something. "Is" and "are" probably reflect, respectively, a word whose third-person-singular ending flowed more smoothly over the tongue than that of the ancestral verb that gave us "are", and the "are" ancestor's plural ending probably flowed better than that of the "is" ancestor. (Or the culprit leading to some of them may be incorporation of a personal pronoun, that flowed together well, into the verb: we may be saying in effect "You you're" when we utter "You are".) I don't recall Pinker saying so, but i wonder if the wording of culturally important oral or written works doesn't often selectively preserve one inflection of a word: Would we know "score" can mean "20" but for "Four score and seven years ago..."? "Make haste" and "hasty pudding" already sound archaic, and while "hasty retreat" persists as a metaphor, it is primarily a military technical term along with "hasty fortification"; i can't imagine even Sarah Palin saying (snicker) "Marry in haste; repent at leisure", and it may be only "Haste makes waste" that keeps the noun from being merely a linguist's example of mutation and obsolescence. (Almost no one knows there's a connection between "scarab" and rock climbers' "locking 'biners".) Anyway, disproportionately frequently used concepts like existence keep more irregular forms, for longer periods, bcz those exceptions from regular inflection are followed in response to strong habit rather than logical reconstruction, and conversely, the less used the faster they revert to conforming to their era's pattern of inflecting regular verbs. I say all that to emphasize that irregular verbs reflect peculiarities of etymology: If there's a pattern, it may be that uses of a verb that clearly derives from a noun are unlikely to be irregular: (I'm not sure how to explain this case:
 * One way to see that it is not one, is that "network" is not the subject to which "cast" is the corresponding predicate, as one might at first glance hope. (I think "network" does not have a subject-predicate relationship even to "becoming" or to "present", but let's dodge that.) A better approach, i think, is to observe that replacing "a series so cast" with "a series so popular", "a series so widely seen", "a series with a black co-star", or "an evening series" fails to change the grammatical relationship between "series" and any the other word in the sentence whose part of speech is verb: while the sense of "cast" is the sense that has makes its part of speech be verb, the grammatical role of "cast" is adjectival, for it modifies the noun "series". Two of the examples on this talk page refine "series" by indicating that the series is such a popular series, and such a widely praised series, and the article indicates the series is a series [that was] cast in [a specified] way, or more specifically one [that was] cast with a black co-star.
 * Having outbid him, i bade him goodbye. He lay on his couch, and lied thru his teeth.
 * I crept out of hiding, in order to see what was going on. And seeing that really creeped me out. He hid from me, but when i found him, i hided him [i.e. beat his hide] a good one!" Having shot a glance at him, i found he was digging up a many-shooted plant.
 * He fitted me for a suit, and it fit me just swell.

The metaphorical expression of the tailor fitting me but actually altering the suit to fit me doesn't feel relevant: i'd still say the tailor fitted the suit to me. It makes me wonder if the active role of the tailor in adjusting fit, in contrast with the passive state of the suit having good fit somehow weighs in what i'd say.) In our case, i assumed the noun "cast" (of a play) to have a separate etymology from the "throw"-derived senses of "cast", and i inferred "casted", as the past and perfect inflections. I suspect that most people would imagine "to cast [a play]" as deriving from giving people places within a cast, rather than thinking of the actors as being thrown into their roles or the play, or its personnel being poured molten into roles. But on reflection i have to admit that casting a horoscope is for me uncomfortably close to casting a play. And the experts seem to have no doubt that the senses of the verb have the same etymology. So i'm wrong, and glad to be corrected. --Jerzy•t 11:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perfect! Makes me pine for a working copy of the OED so I can more forcefully state Q.E.D.. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the fourth of the four i had in mind, which is a 10 minute drive away. My love's ex-father-in-law died in possession of one; perhaps i should have admired it more forcefully. I didn't, BTW, think of "long-lived" until i was just about to save the preceding 'graph. William Safire pointed out that the I is long, tho you hardly ever hear it pronounced that way. His point is that in that context "lived" is not the past (or perfect) of "to live"; rather, it's analogous to "long-knived assassins" or "a clawed paw", a paw having claws and not one that another animal has clawed. It seems to be an idiomatic formation rule of English (perhaps generalizing from certain noun-verb relationships ... uh, "ink" is a noun, and a verb meaning "to put ink on", so of course the participle "inked" implies that it has ink on it. It seems to me that an -ed suffix could be generalized into a formation rule applicable even if the noun does not have a verb spelled the same and having that relationship to it. Anyway, under this formation rule, knife and life are still nouns, and the result of following the noun with -(e)d follows the rule for adding -(e)s to the noun to make the plural:
 * knifed is the regular past of the verb knife, but knived (by analogy with knives) is the, what, maybe attributive, of the irregular noun knife. And long-lived doesn't reflect the regular past and perfect of live, but the irregular plural of life: the vowel is the long I of the noun life, not the short one of the verb live, and the consonant V is not from the verb to live, but from the consonant change of the irregular plural and "attributive" of the noun life.
 * And 95% (i dunno if "long-lived" is part of the too complex 5%, or a special case in being easier enuf over the tongue, maybe, to overcome the illogic of calling someone "long-lived" with a short I when he's still alive) you learn whether your mom tries to teach you or not. Another reason to accept the peacock's tail theory of the evolution of human intelligence. --Jerzy•t 07:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, what was that? I was using my forebrain to admire my hindbrain, or vice versa. ;^)
 * Binksternet (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Any use for this soundproofing isolation booth dealie?
File:Studio sound panel.JPG There's not one on Wikipeida yet. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please put a hyphen in front of the word "File" to make it into a wikilink, like this: [[:File:... You would also take out the thumb and pixel parameters. I don't want my talk page all rearranged around your images.
 * You could use that image in articles such as Absorption (acoustics), Anechoic chamber, Room acoustics, Recording studio, Isolation booth, Soundproofing, Sound baffle, etc. Have fun! Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't that actually a midrange frequency sound deflection panel; not a sound proofing deadedning device? It is in a piano isolation room. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Antique shop find
Look what I found at an antique store: sorry it's not the greatest quality I took a lot of pictures of the historical building and was trying to be sneaky. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcadimensia/4080356339/


 * That speaker would only be of interest to a collector of old Bell & Howell 16mm film equipment. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit reverts
you know I reverted your image edits to loudspeaker enclosure don't you? [You can see why here if you oppose http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doT4lGzzd8A. I already explained this.
 * Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Razzie discussion
At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers, it appears that there is a majority of consensus not to use these templates on WP:BLPs. I think I will close this discussion, and nominate those particular templates for deletion. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It does indeed look like consensus has been achieved, but I think waiting one more day is the proper thing to do so as to allow a full week for this poll to run its course. I don't expect the developing consensus to shift, I just think that all interested parties should be allowed to weigh in. Saturday is often an active day for editing, so let's not interrupt Saturday editors from having their say. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I closed the debate. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You think it is okay now to go ahead and nom those 5 particular templates for deletion? Cirt (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that they don't have any use, sure. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Idea
We are behind with giving out DYK awards. My idea is to give out some awards and deputise them to give out some more awards. Do you think that might work? Victuallers (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes! I certainly think so. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 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) 17:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Recounting
Regarding this, 27,400 is the correct number (12,600 + 14,800). How did you get 28,000? --BorgQueen (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 600 the next day. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article wasn't featured on Main Page for three days, was it? --BorgQueen (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh. Okay, I'll revert. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did it for you. Also, the Kashkari article was not featured for two days; it got a moderately high hit the next day because he was in the news at that time. The time of an article's featuring can be usually deduced from the time the DYK template was added on its talk page. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright! Thanks for the tips. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

how do they do this for every town?
I want to make one for Hall, New York. Every other little town and city has one. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Go to WikiProject Cities and ask them. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the 50 DYK medal.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You earned it! :)
 * Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Studio_monitor
You know about the infamous Yamaha NS-10's? My teacher was just talking about those the other day. We have some but we use Dynaudio and Mackies in the studios. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I know a little about them, yeah. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See I can do it
I made a genuinely good article. Television antenna Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rock on! Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you actually think it was good; all the pictures were mine; did you think they/that many were needed? I might even add more for multiple antennas. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Pro Tools
What do you know about it? We use HD at school. A Digidesigns board meant strictly for use with Pro tools and then we have a Toft analog in the other room with Pro Tools that we just put in and it's not even fully up and running. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I know just enough about Pro Tools to get into big trouble. I think you ought to take your question to a Pro Tools discussion board. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For the backup on the matter at Nanking Massacre. To me, that appeared to be a grossly controversial assertion, i.e. the type that should be removed posthaste rather than politely waiting to see if someone will provide an RS. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jet blast deflector
Hello! Your submission of Jet blast deflector 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! Materialscientist (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:P-51-October1942.jpg
File:P-51-October1942.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:P-51-October1942.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) 22:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding me?
Recording studio has no references!?!?!?!?! You cannot find a single reference? You guys smokin crack over there in Pro World? Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not my baby—my focus isn't that direction. In pro audio, I'm a live event guy, primarily. The only thing I do with Recording studio is remove crappy writing from it. I don't intend to add anything. It appears to have been written early in the bad old days when a ton of Wikipedia articles were written without refs. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And so many of them survive; even with ref tags that are years old. Like remember how I used to use them to my defense when I wrote and articles without references lol? Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

solid knowledge of electrical signals and wire characteristics
What do you know about antenna (radio)s and especially TV antennas? They are so "simple" and common yet so complicated at the same time. And no one seems to be able to answer my questions about them. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

RCA vandalism
The RCA article is being vandalized again. We need an administrator's intervention. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything good has ever been made by RCA. Isn't it funny how low end connectors are called RCA conectors? Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Good for speaker box page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:4th_order_bandpass.JPG I already put it there. Loudspeaker enclosure Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

sound definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sound#the_definition

(sorry to bother you) --59.92.50.79 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Howard Knox Ramey
I see you've made a start on St. Clair Streett. Would you like to tag Howard Knox Ramey for me? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you make of this?
File:Homemade studio.JPG


 * I see an unfinished boxy closet made into a listening room, a room that must have very prominent room modes that color the sound. I see a set of homemade speakers which each use two car speakers that I assume are both connected full range. With two full-range drivers mounted in the same enclosure there will be a large amount of distortion in front of them due to comb filtering. I see a stack or two of home-style components, understanding nothing of how they are connected in the back. If you're asking about the photo relative to Wikipedia, I would have a hard time figuring out where to use it. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How come you haven't been responding to anyone's messages on your talk page in the last two weeks, then when I put a large picture there to provoke it;s like poking a bees nest? Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're driving a car at lightspeed and you turn on your headlights, what happens? Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A luminous boom. A buildup of light wave crests. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cherenkov radiation Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That was the best answer I have ever heard! :-)
 * Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OMG.... OMFG... You RE-responded!!!!!! You NEVER fuckin re-respond!!!!! This IS the first time! Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

File:TransmissionLineSpeaker.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:TransmissionLineSpeaker.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha you gettin in trouble lol. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Mixing console
File:Gemini mixer and MCS EQ.JPG What do you think of my retro mixer? Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No opinion. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The fuck does that mean? Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And as far as the room; it sounds good at low levels but I guess I had better just conform and sound-ize it cause it gets bad at higher volumes; as one might expect of an empty, bare walled, no carpeted room... Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hey, I understand why you left this message--but why did you remove my remarks? Drmies (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry! I had no idea... I was given no warning of an edit conflict. When I opened his discussion page to say something to him, he had no messages at all. When I was done leaving my message, I just saved it and that was it. I didn't realize you were also working on a message for him. Anyway, I fixed it. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha--thanks. Did you use Twinkle? Those kinds of things seem to happen to me all the time when I use TW for warnings. BTW, I hadn't thought to check where that information came from, so good call. Later, Drmies (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't use Twinkle, nor did I click on the tab that says "new section" which would have given me my own heading underneath yours. I just opened the empty page, added my note and hit "save page". Curious! Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sound reinforcement
Hi, Thanks for your friendly message. Ha ha...as you know, one rarely gets a friendly message on Wikipedia. Most messages seem to be "Your edits were *@#$)*)* ....Do not make edits to this article without getting the approval of the main editors"! (or "rv...your edit violates longstanding consensus).......... I am just trying to add more details and references to some of the pro sound articles. Pro sound articles, like music articles in general, tend to attract a lot of "urban legend" type stuff that people heard some guy say at a bar...you know like "Metal band XXX uses the largest sound reinforcement system in the world, with 100,000 watts" (with no source). Another popular thing is where people confuse advertising claims with facts: "The XYZ-1200 subwoofer has the purest, clearest bass sound and longest throw of any subwoofer in the world"...type of stuff. I think that the subwoofer example has an impressive amount of references, compared with a lot of sound or music articles.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On a funny note, if you ever want a fun Wikipedia project for an evening, you can go to almost any rock guitarist's article and you will have to clean up MANY instances of blatant POV. The article will claim, without ANY sources, that the guitarist in question "played the first recorded solo using XYZ technique", or that this guitarist is "Widely regarded as the greatest living rock guitarist" (once again, no source). As well, guitarist and rock band articles often include cut-and-paste promotional propaganda about the band that is probably lifted straight from the band's promo kit...stuff like "In the last years, the band has made a huge comeback, and fans have responsed with great enthusiasm to the group's new revved-up, stripped-down sound" (made up quote to show the type of stuff you find).....OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, I can believe it! There's a huge amount of cleanup work on musician articles, no doubt. I've been keeping away from them, mostly. :/
 * In the last two years, that subwoofer article has benefited from the attentions of you, me, User:Ww, User:Noodle snacks and a few others. It's pretty good now. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahahahaha it still has my picture in it ;) Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

self-assessment
You're doing some great work on the ace biographies, but you can't self-assess anything above start for the Aviation contest. Somebody else needs to validate that you're covering all the bases for the B-class criteria. I'd suggest submitting them to the MILHIST assessment page as that's a lot more active than the Aviation assessment page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I understand. I figured I could assess my own articles as high as B class, like in the rest of Wikipedia, but that I would not try to get contest credit for assessing my own articles. You saying self-assessment doesn't work for the contest is a pretty big change from standard practice. I guess I better get some compadres working on verifying those assessments. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

St. Clair Streett
There's a little problem with the St. Clair Streett DYK nomination; could you have a look? Thanks, Ucucha 21:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone fixed it for me. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Previous Bose headphones
An article that you have been involved in editing, Previous Bose headphones, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Previous Bose headphones. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. talk 22:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia influence
I thought you might be interested to know that I saw the influence of Wikipedia today in the Japan Times print edition. In the paper there was a full-page add by a Japanese Buddhist group which had a ceremony on Guadalcanal at Alligator Creek recently to honor Japanese war dead. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a copy of the add online anywhere. Anyway, the ad explained the Battle of the Tenaru and Guadalcanal campaign using phrases that were obviously based on the Wikipedia articles, as the wording was very similar. That's the second time I've seen something like that in the media. About two years ago I saw a "Did you know" type blurb on the Discovery Channel which repeated word-by-word a sentence from the intro of the Guadalcanal Campaign article. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm always amazed at how quickly the web crawlers and copycat sites pick up on a new article. Astounding. You're right, people are using Wikipedia quite a bit. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Crazy Bose product articles
Is it one person who created all these nonwiki worthy articles on every damn shitty Bose product? Like Bose stereo systems I thought was bad enough but now Previous Bose headphones!!! What the Hell is that? That's not even how the title should read. Listen to that title; previous bose heaphones.. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the purpose of this? File:Square magnet.jpg How can that not be a horroribly bad design; how can it be either way? Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox title lines
I've noticed you've been re-adding the manufacturer to the title line in the aircraft infoboxes, as on the various DC-airliner articles. Per WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft): "For the most part, as there is an appropriate field in the infobox itself, including the manufacturer in the "name" field is not necessary. Some exceptions exist, such as aircraft which only have model numbers." Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like you are interpreting this sentence differently than I am: "Some exceptions exist, such as aircraft which only have model numbers." If the airplane is made by Hellfire Industries and called the HF-3 "HellZap" or whatever, then I can certainly see no need for the company name in the infobox, and just "HF-3 HellZap" at the top. If it is called the "HF-3" alone, only the model number, then I hold that the company name is appropriate, as in "Hellfire HF-3". Your reversions here, here, here, here and here don't make sense to me. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Model number" is like "747", "787", etc, those without any letters. The Aircraft Project agreed that in those cases, the Manf. name is appropriate. "Airbus" is used on the AIrbus pages so as not to offend the Airbus fanboys, because "Boeing" is used on its airliner pages. Those are the main exceptions. - BilCat (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! Never in my life have I considered there to be a significant difference between a model number that had a few letters which didn't spell anything and a model number with only numerals. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what the guidelines mean anyway. You're welcome to bring the issue up at WT:AIR if you'd like to make some changes to those guidelines. Personally, I'd prefer having the manufacturer name in the infobox in most cases, but the consensus has aways been against it. - BilCat (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

All right to use excerpt from your talk page here?
User:Daniel Christensen


 * Sure. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfinished boxy closet; home-style components. Ahh it's pure gold.... Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect from National American Suffrage Association
You have made the greatest contribution to improving National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA), so I'd like your advice on my suggestion that the stub National American Suffrage Association, as far as I know a never-existing group, be blanked and redirected to NAWSA. My suggestion is on the talk page for that group. Do you agree? Dwalls (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Answer at Talk:National American Suffrage Association. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Crafton, CA
You reverted me and it is considered vandalism, you did not provide a real "statement" on the edit summary. I have a better argument, than you. Now please use the talk page its there for a reason. House1090 (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see vandalism. I reverted you with a perfectly clear edit summary. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Type
Could you have a look at T:TDYK? There's a problem that'll likely be easy to fix. Ucucha 04:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Peacock description
What is that? And check out my high-end head unit; I actually connected the antenna lead into the broke off rabbit ear hole. File:Crappy head unit.jpg Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If that doesn't make you laugh a little you have no sense of humor; that or it was just at the wrong time. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Oh well. Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's absolutely ridiculous; using a little battery radio shoved into the head unit slot because I took my good system (File:Subwoofer box.jpg -it's on the speaker box page) out. And the fact that I actually connected the antenna. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ranchos DYK
Great to hear from you, Binksternet. I am always grateful for your contributions to the rancho pages. And it is an extra bonus when you fix them to DYK status, as I don't really have the time to do it. Emargie (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the publicity! Like you, and the other 'good guys' on the California pages, being able to contribute to these worthwhile, serious projects is my reward.  But really, thanks. Emargie (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for cleaning up my California Project comment.Emargie (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hey, I just noticed I missed your one year Wikipedia anniversary in October! You are a real asset to the project. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nom Hawa Mahal
Please reconsider your comment there and avoid speaking for the DYK project. We are losing noms recently and had to switch from 6-hr to 8-hr rotation. Pushing away prolific contributors would only further harm the project. Materialscientist (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was under the impression that there were too many DYK noms—I guess I haven't been paying attention recently. I don't wish to cater to an editor's mood swings but it is true that the guy has been a good contributor. I will address him directly. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They are one of the most prolific WP contributors overall (you're welcome to examine their accounts at and ) and don't really read their talk. I would correct the DYK post instead. It is true though that some of their DYK noms are sloppy. Materialscientist (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Type (designation)
Where do you find these things to write articles on? It's like long and well written and on some abstract thing LOL. Daniel Christensen (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the contradiction tag, I misread and didn't spot the difference between IJN and IJA. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No sweat! That's what I figured. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack London - man bites dog
Hi Binksternet - I do not think you have any good reason for removing the 'man bites dog' joke. Your edit summary doesn't help much... Zargulon (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I wrote in my edit summary, "Let's see some contemporary reviews that make the comparison, not Wikipedia editors." I was referring obliquely to the guideline WP:NOR which establishes that the role of Wikipedia is to tell the reader about what has been published, not to tell the reader things that have never before been published. If you have a source which compares London's story to the "man bites dog" newspaper meme, I would be happy to see that bit kept in the article. My problem with your addition was that I guessed that you were the person making the connection, not a historic reviewer of Jack London. Prove my guess wrong. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am the first one to make this connection as far as I know, so it may be "original". But I don't see how you could possibly cast my contribution as "research". It is just literate comic relief for the reader - this is not against any WP guideline that I know of - and it is pretty unobtrusive as such things go. It doesn't make any claim which requires sourcing (except the content of the story, which I hope is not in dispute). I am baffled to see how NOR even remotely applies. Zargulon (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The comic relief is manufactured by you, not intended by London or noticed by a reviewer. The part of the book in which a man bites a dog is written to be fatally serious, not funny. Of the guideline WP:NOR, the section about synthesis is the most telling against your addition. (A): Newspapermen assert that an event is news if a man bites a dog more than if a dog bites a man. (B): London writes about a man who must bite a dog or die of hunger. (C): You put the two together, even though London didn't write a news item or mention the man-bites-dog meme, and the newspapermen didn't consider London's story in establishing their newsworthiness standard. I just don't see the need for any humor in the article that is not from London or from notable observers of London. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The WP:SYNTH guideline does not refer indiscriminately to any act of "putting things together"; it specifically refers to synthesising an argument, which I have not done. Your comment reveals what I suspected - you "don't see the need for it" - otherwise known as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm glad the truth finally came out! Zargulon (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Rancho Monserate
Could you please have a look at the nomination you recently made to DYK? Thanks, Ucucha 12:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

New editor Steveziez
Hi Binksternet, your treatment of the recent edits by User:Steveziez to the Battle of Britain is somewhat harsh; these appear to be "good faith" edits from someone who is (possibly proud) of Keith Park's nationality and should be treated in this way, rather than being classified as vandalism. Steveziez is obviously a brand new editor who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing guidelines and, as such, deserves to be given a few breaks, rather than be suddenly confronted with the idea that his alterations are considered to be "vandalism" and a close to warning notice posted on this user's discussion page. This is a great way of putting new editors off for good. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bad me! Blasting through diffs, I read his edit as applying the New Zealand flag to Hugh Dowding, a man who had nothing to do with New Zealand. Lesson: going too fast... :( Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We all make mistakes - some would say that's why we edit Wikipedia! ;) Have an excellent Christmas and don't sneak down and open all the presents Santa has brought at 3 o'clock in the morning. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Prejudice?

 * You are sistematically deleting my quotes even if supported buy notes and even if checked and let by experienced contributors... are You sure You have not a prejudice about everything I write about Allied planes? If so, I ask you to stop, wikipedia is NOT your project.

Regards, --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with your English writing skills and your ability to put ideas in context. This is an encyclopedia for English readers, and it should be written by people who have good English skills. More than that, the ideas in an article should be presented to the reader in a logical flow. Your edits often break an existing line of thought. I have no personal problem with you—you certainly love to write! I just wish that you were able to edit more skilfully. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of High-end audio cables
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is High-end audio cables. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/High-end audio cables. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hans-Georg von Seidel
According to my sources (Fellgiebel and Scherzer), von Seidel did not receive the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi controversial but not well documented subjects
If their;s an article on something that is I guess I'd call "semi controversial" but it is not documented honestly/closely/well, can I rewrite/add from personal experience? Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC).


 * Thanks! You, too. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

P-38
Sorry, Gunston docet... "Questa strana macchina volante, durante le prime prove di rullaggio, si schiantò ai bordi della pista.... Questo aereo era arrivato a New York in appena 7 ore e 2 minuti con due sole fermate per il rifornimento..." I hope you can read italian.... You can use automatic translator... Merry Christmas, Blinksternet regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't need to read Gunston in Italian or English to know that Gunston is incorrect about the "crash" and incorrect about "only two" fuel stops. Warren Bodie is the more careful writer about the P-38 and he describes the events far more accurately. Please see Talk:P-38 Lightning for the full reasoning. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

SL Crusade
A review of your recent activity has revealed a rash of edits of link outs to material related to Second Life; while I have not inspected all of these edits, investigating one such edit (at Avnet) has shown it to be counter productive and uniformed- the related site was directly topical and associated officially with the company in question. If you do not have time to investigate material you consider questionable, then refrain from editing said material- your actions are destructive. You seem well intended- but the results are not in keeping with your apparent intent; reconsider your agenda.Mavigogun (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I went and reviewed a great number of Second Life presences in Wikipedia, and I saw that most were good for the encyclopedia. When I looked at the Avnet page, I noticed that there was nothing in the article about how Second Life includes an Avnet business presence, so I removed the link. Another editor with closer ties to the article saw my deletion and returned the link with some incremental explanation of its utility. Thus, my deletion helped the article in a small way. I still think that the article body could talk about the SL location and bring it into perspective, rather than having it be an unexplained external link.


 * So you see, I'm not the mad deletionist slavering after Second Life blood. I simply wish to see SL links have a very close relevance to the subject matter. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Legal threat
Advice posted on the ANI thread is to email with details. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer. I have sent a letter to Godwin. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Behringer
Wondered why there was a lot of activity on the talk page, just saw your post on the admin noticeboard. Not cool at all. Still, at least there are other eyes focussed on the article now. Thedarxide (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it is very good to have more expert attention on the article. When I read the legal letter from Behringer, I immediately wondered if you got one, too. Looks like "no". I must be easier to locate in real life than you are! Cheers... Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After the outing episode threw up some very bizarre suggestions for my identity, it's obvious that there are several people with my username. That said, I'm guessing since you're in the states, that it might be "jurisdiction" thing. Thedarxide (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)