User talk:Binksternet/Archive9

Seneca Falls Convention GA review
You've had quite a wait for this, but the GA review's done now. You'll find it on the talk page as usual. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

More Iran coup
Thanks for your input. What do you think - should we start a Requests for comment now, or sort out a rewrite of the huge abrahamian quote and ask for comments for both? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think sorting out a rewrite is next thing to do. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Two things: any thing you want to change to my rewrite?
 * CasualObserver has suggestions for the article I'm going to work on in the near future. See what you think. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like your section and I tweaked its punctuation and referencing to make it better suited to article space. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * made some changes in the proposed lead again in hopes of acomodating CasualO --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Surround sound got cut down again
An unregistered IP address user took all the diagrams and sections out of surround sound again; and again replaced it with the confusing chart. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My DYKs
You're confusing number of hooks with number of articles. Some of my hooks were multi-article hooks. Click on "edit" in the dyk subpage to see the count in hidden comments. Yours, BencherliteTalk 06:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the medal. I've ended up ending far more than I ever wanted to know about minor Welsh 19th-century Anglican clergymen... (those who went to Jesus College, Oxford, anyway!) Regards, BencherliteTalk 06:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 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) 21:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Alhambra warning
I was reverting 67.172.112.54 stuff. He put the gibberish, warn him. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.163.213.248 (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note! I have corrected my error. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Adrian Legg
Simply "having an author and stating sources" doesn't mean it's reliable. See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27 and Talk:Shenandoah_(band)/GA1 as but two discussions wherein musicianguide.com was decided not to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The conversation I had seen you point to earlier (by taking a quick look at your contributions) was that first link. When I went to the link I found it argued only that the website did not have authors or sources. In that light, you can understand my edit summary "Malarkey! This article has an author and states sources. Blanket deletion doesn't apply here."


 * Looking at your second link, I see nothing at all about the subject. Did you give me the right link? Are there any RfC discussions that closed in favor of banning musicianguide.com? If so, I would like to see the archived discussion. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Second link says "What makes ref #1 [1]. I can't find any editorial policy." Note that WP:RS says, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." According to Domain Tools, the owner has a Gmail e-mail, which is a red flag in my opinion. We don't know who owns this site, who can write for it, what their credentials are, and (for the most part) where they're getting their info from. Therefore, it is not a reliable source.


 * For further proof, here is another discussion wherein Musician Guide was deemed unreliable (the grey "issues resolved" tab), and here is another. Here is a discussion wherein the people involved were suspicious of the site. tl;dr: weak consensus that it's not reliable, combined with comparison to WP:RS guidelines = not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're saying the main site, musicianguide.com, is not trustworthy but you have not commented on the one page I am talking about: Rich Bowen's short bio of Adrian Legg. The page shows sources, albeit not inline, and it has good quotes taken from real reviews. Bowen has also written about Ginger Baker on musicianguide.com and has co-authored books on cooking and on Apache software. When Bowen offers his opinion, I would quote him. However, I am not using Bowen's opinion, just a simple fact of birthdate that Bowen took from the Guinness Encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * None of the discussions in your supplied links are sufficient to apply a global ban on musicianguide.com across all of Wikipedia. As it stands now, the various pages of musicguide.com must be taken one at a time and judged on merit. The Adrian Legg page doesn't appear to me to have any gaping flaws—the quotes that it includes are ones I can see echoed online in their original sources. The birthdate it states comes from an offline source which backs it up. I see no reason to throw it out. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So why not just use the other sources if all Musician Guide does is puke up stuff from other sources? That makes more sense than using a site with no editorial policy. I've seen several places on Musician Guide where they've mentioned stuff that I've not been able to back up anywhere else (for instance, James Bonamy's first single being withdrawn because his label thought "there were too many dog songs"). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We are still discussing each page on its own merits, not musicianguide.com as a whole. The James Bonamy page you mention appears to have been written by somebody signing as "Bill Bennett", probably not the Australian film director or the Canadian premier. If musicianguide Bennett has other writing credits, I cannot sort them out of the noise on search engines, as his name is common. If Bennett is lying about the label thinking Bonamy's songs were dogs, then yes, that page has serious reliability issues. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kinda gone stale here. Any more opinions? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stale, yes. No new thoughts, sorry. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK list
I honestly have no idea what I did. I must've edited an older version of the page. Rolled back my self and reupdating my count now. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, man. I was going to try and figure out the modus, but instead decided to save time and ask you. ; ^ )
 * Binksternet (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you very kindly for the DYK medal you gave me earlier. Much appreciated, -- Big  Dom  18:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You bet! You did all the hard work. ;^)
 * Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Art Deco
I find it quite interesting that You belive that You is the one supposed to be the judge regarding this page. You do not own it as little as I do. You started the edit war after I changed the picture to a better one, which also seem to have some backup, in contrary to you. Please stop this edit war or you may be banned (by others, not me) from Wikipedia. Carl Milles (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If I have ownership issues, I have them on more than 4,000 articles—my watchlist. What I do a lot of here (in addition to writing new articles) is keep articles from being changed trivially, or being changed by vandals. Your photo change is trivial, and your reason for the change is not verifiable. You say it shows more "Deco", but the images show the same building, the same section of building. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Posted a reply to your review of music videos
Don't mean to screw up your homepage, but I feel that you were unprofessional in your response to me. Please don't insult other users- see your response to me for more detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stackedaktor (talk • contribs) 23:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply at User talk:Stackedaktor. Screwing up my homepage would be vandalism—adding a complaint about my actions is nothing bad. Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Stepping into the mess at 1953 Iranian coup d'état
Thank you so much for the barnstar. It's incredibly motivating, just when I needed it :)--Work permit (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I guessed as much. Glad it hit home! You really deserve it. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And thank you Binsksternet for starting the RfM --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome, but I think I will have to go to the next level to make it stick. Binksternet (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am concerned about your most recent deletion of a wide swath of material representing an Iranian viewpoint from this article. There are few if other Iranian viewpoints in this article and the subject is Iran. It would have been OK if you had replaced the material with a summary but you just deleted it. Would you please explain why you did this? And please tell me why you did not come to my talk page to discuss this before the wholesale deletion. Thank you.Skywriter (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted it per WP:LEAD, where it says:
 * The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.
 * The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic...
 * Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body...
 * Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. ... This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article.
 * Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it.
 * The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.
 * As you can see, the overly detailed quote you placed in the lead section was incorrect in every measure. I removed it but it is not gone forever. You are free to place it in the article body and then, if appropriate, say something about it in the lede, without getting too specific. Nothing about my editorial oversight was related to the contribution being an Iranian voice. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bink, you sure did delete a viewpoint-- a central viewpoint. The article is about Iran and you deleted an Iranian perspective in an article where there are very few Iranian viewpoints. If you think it was too long, you could have shortened it. If you thought it needed to be somewhere else, you could have moved it. This is very aggressive editing, Bink, and I am here today visiting your talk page to try to convince you to stop the hostile edits and I will certainly do the same. If I have offended you, I am sorry. Can we move on? Skywriter (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK changes in
FYI, your series of edits in January to the DYK lists seems to have removed my entry. No harm, no foul imho, based on the significant cleanup you did there. I'll add my newly updated line back in, but wanted to mention it you so you'd be aware. dm (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like it was on purpose. By splitting up the two lists, I qualify for neither until I get a few more articles...  I guess I should return the 25 dyk award now.   :) dm (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, no, don't return the award! The good part is you will get new awards when you get to 25 nominations and when you get to 25 creations/expansions. Keep up the good work! Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of BevMo!
Hello! Your submission of BevMo! 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! cmadler (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't threaten me!
You don't know who Yda Addis was, you don't know anything about her, yet you dare to tell me that I cannot edit the page. I wrote the book on Yda Addis. You did not. So, if anyone will edit the Yda Addis page, it will be me. And by the way, the photograph you have of Yda Addis is not the correct photograph. I uploaded the correct photograph of her a few years ago, and the stupid editors of Wikipedia DELETED IT!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaos4tu (talk • contribs) 16:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ri-i-ight. In this edit, you took away referenced text and replaced it with... well, you didn't replace it. You left a fractured sentence reading "Addis published these stories inliterature included ghost tales..." Once you understand that Wikipedia has rules about what a reliable source is, and how to cite sources, you will understand that I am simply protecting the article from vandalism. In removing the referenced text, you also removed a maintenance tag noting that the referencing of the article should be improved—quite ironic! Your destructive editing of Yda Hillis Addis has every appearance of vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

DUKW
I apreciate your intelligent changes, however I do ask that you do not keep removing the Union Jack in the DUKW article. It was partly developed by a british deep water sailor, and that should be shown. Remember than not everything in WWII was achieved by the americans, and I want some credit for British men. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.98.162.226 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Rommelspargel
How's this coming along? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll get some of the points addressed by March 17. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you done? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Steinway D-274
"Steinway D-274" has been improved (although in my opinion it is too promotional) and moved again to the main space. I think you might be interested to know this since you were involved in a discussion regarding this topic. Regards. --Karljoos (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet, please stop reverting the article back to a redirect, we will only get in an edit war again and all get blocked. It is obvious that Fanoftheworld has put hard work into this article and it has improved much since. Please express your opinion on the talk page of the article before deleting all of this user's hard work.-- Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 20:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is clear that a lot of effort went into the making of the article, and it is pretty. However, the piano model number is not relevant to the public. You might have noticed that I have already been expressing my opinion on the associated talk page, five hours before your invitation. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "However, the piano model number is not relevant to the public." – This is obviously wrong and can only be said by someone how has little or almost no knowledge about pianos. The D-274 is probably the best known piano worldwide. (According to you Porsche RS Spyder is not relevant to the public, as you could claim about many other articles on Wikipedia...). Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can find hundreds of references to the Porsche Spyder, but none about the D-274 or Model D or whatever. The ball is in your court: prove notability or watch the article go away. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An orhaned article should not be automatically deleted because it is an orphan! An orphaned article is not the same as the subjects notability.
 * Furthermore you are comparing the number of references to a very very new article created March 13, 2010, with the number of references to Porsche RS Spyder article created on October 23, 2005. Very intelligent.


 * No, you brought up the Porsche bit—I have never been over to look at that article. New articles that have no notability are just the same as old retread articles that have no notability: they should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I brought up Porsche RS Spyder, but not the number of references to Porsche RS Spyder. Read carefully.
 * An orphaned article is not the same as the subjects notability. The D-274 is probably the best known piano worldwide. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Repeating yourself does not help me understand. I am asking you to supply proof that the subject is notable, to answer requirements listed at WP:N, such as:

"* 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention.
 * 'Reliable' means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * 'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject.
 * Also: significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article."


 * When you are able to show notability, the article will stand. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Seriously, do you really think you can demand that a user shall prove whatever you like???!!!
 * Do you have a COI, conflict of interest, maybe not about piano brands but about me. You are very negative about the article Steinway D-274 and you demand proves for the notability of Steinway D-274. But you are very positive about the similar Imperial Bösendorfer (piano). Funny thing, you know, you do not demand proves for Imperial Bösendorfer (piano), which is a very rare piano, but you do for the probably best known piano world wide. I think you are doing a little overkilling regarding Steinway D-274. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fanoftheworld, given Binksternet's very broad and diverse edit history, as compared to your narrow and single purpose edit history, it's very presumptuous for you to accuse him of a COI.THD3 (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I learned to play on a crappy old upright piano the make of which I do not recall, and when my father's work brought in more money, he bought my mother a Steinway baby grand. That Steinway has been hers ever since, and it has seen some mildly famous fingers, those of Korla Pandit, whose giant finger rings left scratches on the face during his visit to the house. Accomplished singers already, my mother and father taught their four children to sing with them in harmony, using the piano as the training tool and as accompaniment. My mother played her favorite pieces (such as Moonlight Sonata) on the piano whenever she was feeling good, and its sound then set the mood for the house. I have a wealth of wonderful family memories surrounding that Steinway. I have a soft spot for Steinway the company, and Steinway pianos, but your endless promotion makes me cringe. About the Imperial Bösendorfer, I had just got done seeing whether that article had any basis in notability, and I concluded that it had, so I !voted to keep it, as you may have seen at Articles for deletion/Imperial Bösendorfer (piano), a motion that you filed. Poor sportsmanship, that filing, displaying your own conflict. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tim Song has closed the discussion as "Keep". There was no consensus (10 people gave their opinion, 5 supporting the merge of the article and 4 opposing). The closing as "keep" seems quite arbitraty.--Karljoos (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unsatisfying, isn't it. I'm gonna fry some other fish for a while. Binksternet (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Steinway D-274. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. You have sent this message to Fanoftheworld but I feel that it applies to you to Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 20:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you, I had noticed. Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

broken online tool for calculating NC, RC, dBA, dBC
You stated "rv link to broken online tool which does not accept decibel levels higher than 99" in revisions to the Architectural Acoustics page.

SPL over 99dB are not relevant to room noise rating criteria. What exactly is “broken” in this online tool? It has been thoroughly tested and all results are compliant with applicable standards.

Mschwob (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)mschwob


 * Pull your head out of the sand, buster. Everybody listens to three-digit SPL from time to time. You have to have three digits or it is not relevant. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
—Mono·nomic 22:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sony Walkman link reversion
Hi,

Why did you revert the link I added to Symbian OS?

Symbian OS is the Multimedia system that runs music and video playback on Sony Walkman phones. It is relevant. However, the "See Also" section contains links to Android OS and Palm OS - neither of which have anything whatsoever to do with the Sony Walkman.

Can you explain why those irrelevant links are in the "See Also" section, but you removed mine?

J murray-wakefield (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The article Walkman already has a link to Symbian OS, right here:


 * "The W950i is a slim device with 4 GB internal flash memory, including a touch screen for navigation through music genres, playlists, individual songs or music albums. It is also the first Symbian OS-based Walkman phone to be introduced."


 * I did not call your link irrelevant, I called it redundant. It is redundant, or excessive, unneeded. Binksternet (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation, rgds J murray-wakefield (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

RV to Audio Mastering
Hi Bink, please read what I said at the talk page. Peace. Jrod2 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Californio
Seems like that 1st sentence needs a change to add the Mexican era. New Spain till 1821, and then Mexican Republic 1821 - 1848. Lots of Californios came in the Mexican Era. But you know this article better than me. Emargie (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, no, I do not know the subject better. I see some writers with a large definition of Californio, and some with a much tighter definition, excluding Mexican immigrants. This latter group makes it appear that Callifornio must refer to landed gentry, not laborers or newcomers. Please take part in the topic at Talk:Californio. Perhaps the article needs to address this divergence in opinion, by supplying two definitions. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dork Fish?
You seem to be unfamiliar with what a Dork Fish looks like ... try looking onto the mirror! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaos4tu (talk • contribs) 02:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm rubber, you're glue... Binksternet (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2010 (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.

Photo of owl at bohemian grove
Hi, I see you have done a lot of work on bohemian grove so I am wondering if the photo you removed would be acceptable if the date was corrected? and if not, would you be opposed to me trying to find a different photo of the statue? Itabletboy (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You will need to find the real source of that photo, the Bohemian Club publication it appeared in, not the internet site you found it in. Good luck—I have not been able to find its source, so I expect the task will be difficult for you, too. Once you discover the source, you may find that the photo is recent enough that its copyright has not yet expired because of old age. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, the name you gave the photo is wrong. The structure is the called the "Owl Shrine". It has nothing to do with Moloch or Molech. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting facts and viewpoints
Hi Bink, I had intended to drop by "to visit" you again today on your talk page when I saw you again deleted newly added factual material from the 1953 Iran coup article. I took the time to review your history and notice that you do not often get into fights or edit wars, except on the Iran page, at least so far as I can see, and that your role on Wikipedia has been decent. This review made me wonder whether I had previously misjudged you or, that you and I got off on the wrong feet. I noticed that you said your interest in Iran was sparked by an RfC. I don't want to rehash the past year but want to ask if you are willing to make a fresh start? Today, you opted to apply the four-paragraph in lead rule and, of course, that got me wondering why you waited until today to kill a paragraph when that lead has been much longer for quite some time (until yesterday when I moved some paragraphs to where they seemed to fit). Given that you deleted factual material that I had added earlier in the week and then deleted more factual material today, I am beginning to see these edits as something other than neutral. Today, for example, you could have moved the paragraph rather than delete it. So I'm here to ask you if you can let bygones be bygones? I am willing to talk to you here on your talk page directly and to cooperate with you on a good faith basis. I have been frustrated in the past when I've asked questions of you (on Iran talk page) and someone other than you supplies answers. That seemed creepy, causing me to discount your seriousness. Then, after you deleted my sourced contribution yet again, I finally looked at the subjects that interest you and where you have edited, and I see that we share quite a few interests in common-- jazz, Port Chicago, aviation, Tuskegee airmen (I bought two of their newest books at the Smithsonian over the winter) and I see that we share an interest in a bunch of other subjects too numerous to mention. So that's my pitch. My view of you is changing. I hope you start to see me as a colleague and not as an object to revert. Can that happen? Skywriter (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I will respond to matters of article content on the relevant article talk page. About you, I have no personal problems. I leave it to you to find the suitable position for too-detailed material you placed in the lead section—it's your material, and you should know best where it fits in the article. I do not presume to know what you intended with the textual addition. All I know is that is that, per WP:LEAD, it does not go in the lead. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As for wiki battles, I've had my share, large and small, brief and lengthy. Check out the article history of Steinway & Sons, another one I became interested in after an editor posted a plea for help at Content noticeboard, the same way I got involved at 1953 Iranian coup d'état. For more examinations of how I interact in conflict with other editors, check out these article histories: Behringer, Horn loudspeaker, El Sobrante, California, Analog hole, Loudspeaker, Subwoofer, Art Deco, The Rape of Nanking (book), Nanking Massacre, Oakland, California, Battle of Okinawa, Disc jockey, Gene Hackman, MP3, Perfect crime, Life, Super Audio CD, Zodiac Killer, Bohemian Grove, Dynamic range, Reductio ad Hitlerum, Equal temperament, Forest Theater, Bill Cosby, High fidelity, Submarine, American Dream, Feminists For Life, Most Holy Family Monastery, Jonathan David Brown, Transparency (data compression). Lots of fun times. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ina is GA
Hello, Binksternet, just wanted to inform you that I've re-read Coolbrith's article and have promoted it to GA-status. Great work! María ( habla con migo ) 14:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yay! Thank you so much for your patience during the long interval between first review and last. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as vintage equipment, how good is Shure?
Such as Shure Vocal Master PA amplifiers and speakers; how good are they? I know the SM58 microphone is relatively cheap and unimpressive. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A set of Vocalmaster and amplifier in good shape will run about $100... not so valuable. Old SM58s are of little value since new ones can be had fairly cheaply, and the design hasn't changed. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, well, they look cool at least. They have like 6 drivers in them. Looks like 5 6's and an 8 or something. Square vents in the back. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay they are really screechy and take a LOT of power but they are loud. They're almost as tall as me. Nothing spectacular for sure, but for the late 60s or 70s.... still meh Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This image is about the closest I can show you to the Vocalmaster output pattern, with it standing up vertically. The vertical drivers are supposed to have a really good throw pattern at some mid-range frequency, but as it gets higher it gets raggedy, uneven and weak. The Bosch column speaker in the image has only four drivers—the six-driver Shure will have a little better pattern control in the lower ranges... Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * People say that the Vocal Master was among the first monitor speakers; foldback speakers aimed at the artist, not at the audience. This was probably with the speakers laying down on their sides, angled up at the artist, I guess. For sure, the Vocal Masters were used from 1967 through the 70s as main concert speakers for small clubs and lesser band tours, amplifying only the singing, not the drums or electric guitars. Some larger tours used multiple Vocal Masters: The Fifth Dimension used four systems (eight columns) in their stadium appearances in 1968. Shure was not first with the design—they copied the Yorkville Sound Voice Master from 1965. Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I ran some test tone signals in them and they are interesting for sure. At around 180 Hertz they resonate wildly leaving things vibrating in the room if stopped quickly. I can't test their bass well as they SUCK the power right out of the amp at low frequencies; they seem radically inefficient at low frequencies; however they have good midbass and upper bass, the feel the snare instead of the kick effect or as I call it inverted bass. I have one standing and one laying because I need to open it up as the center drivers are not working, only the larger ones. The standing one with all working drivers is impressing me to get excited about getting both working and set up. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The low bass I could get before my amp switches off (and even released some smoke to my alarm!-but did not break-good old faithfull TRM-800) was not even making the drivers move noticably yet, so I get what you mean about the lower frequencies. I need to get out my poor quality Boss DD3600 Class D amp to test the bass, which I would normally not want to use on anything valuable or worthful. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The speakers almost act like they have to be blasting loud to get a good response; like for casual low volume listening I'd rather listen to my internal laptop speakers. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Got is; they are 16 ohms, knew it. http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-122201.html
 * Damn, the whole manual is right here: http://www.shure.eu/stellent/groups/public/@gms_gmi_web_ug/documents/web_resource/us_pro_va300-s_ug.pdf

LVTRACKED
I was implying that we also used it, not deisgned it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.98.162.226 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

1953 coup
What next - arbitration? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Possibly. First, let's put Lenczowski in the article as a reference. If that is repelled, we will know what to do. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be off monday but I'm ready to help with arbitration anytime you are. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * PS Am I being too touchy or is this incivility? "your cherry picking skills are still ...trivial character assassinations ... I must say that this is a new low for you Booga ..." "Are you OK? ... You allow for no nuance, Booga, no shades of differences"  "your addiction to micromanagement would be admirable to anyone who thinks that's a good quality ... If you have a low tolerance for change, try something else. In any case, Get A Grip. For Your Own Sake." cute version of my name: "BoogaLuise", "BoogaLouie's whitewash" --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That is incivility. Not good. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sticking up for me on the talk page. I made a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User_talk:Kurdo777_and_User_talk:Skywriter_and_less-than-civil_comments_connected_to_1953_Iranian_coup_d.27.C3.A9tat_article Wikiquette alert complaint] against them. I'm afraid the constent repetition of how biased I am might "demonize" me or somthing. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Parallel compression
Hello! Your submission of Parallel compression 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! Storye book (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Check THIS out
Little out of my price range Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.royaldevice.com/custom.htm


 * I wrote about that puppy at the bottom of the Subwoofer article. Pretty crazy installation! Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the 25DYK medal Binksternet. Mikenorton (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Instrument brands in infoboxes
Please review and feel free to contribute to this discussion.THD3 (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the support. Great to hear from you, Binksternet.Emargie (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Audio Clipping
Binksternet, I noticed you removed the text from the Audio Clipping article which I had added. Would you take a look at my comments on the talk page for that article and see if you can come up with a way to improve the text rather than just remove it completely. Sprexumn (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the royal device installation
400 watts max per woofer? Wow, must be because they have such high sensitivity. And the amount of power they actually give them is only in the single digits of watts!?! "The real maximum power fed to both subhorn measured with an oscilloscope at the highest musical peak was 6 watts per channel when a pair of tube amps were used to drive the 16 LAuras"

Okay so looking at the pictures and the power supply I would say this seems to be more of a sound quality thing not so much sound pressure or lowness. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. Sound pressure is probably not so gigantic, but it is supposed to go very low: 10 Hz. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't get it; looking around and following links and reading; is "Royal Device" a company that sells products or is everything here specialty. And all the English is roughly translated. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * the faces are of course full of laughing especially when the other 15,000 euros player got its chance to let his voice out. From: http://www.royaldevice.com/EV3-eng.htm Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I think Royal Device may be just some Italian guys who make custom loudspeaker installations. Home theater on steroids. Just guessing... Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see; they say the sensitivity for the whole subwoofer is 120 db/watt/meter which is higher than anything I've ever heard of. The lowest I've seen is like 85 db/watt/meter for a woofer. 105 is considered high for a woofer. But 120 is for the whole sub-woofer here; not one woofer. Well anyway, what is the sensitivity of the average tweeter? It's gotta be pretty high.

LOL home theater on steroids. I don't even see a screen; no room for one! LOL they would never be able to fit it in acoustically; look at how perfected the room is. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

regarding 1953 Iranian coup d'état
I've noticed you've made many partial/full reverts on above article and per the book broke WP:3RR:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=353007284&oldid=353001792
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=353073843&oldid=353073563
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=353067318&oldid=353042195
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=353055099&oldid=353042195

I would advice you to hold of for a day or two so this situation doesn't get out of hand. → Aza Toth 19:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have selected those diffs, but I see what you're sayin'. Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

thank you
Hello Binksternet and thank you very much for the 100 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal. It's appreciated! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * :D
 * Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde, GAR Thanks
Hi Binksternet,

Thank you for possibly the most thorough review I have ever seen at GA level, in fact in places I think you've even raised the bar. I'm going to get to work tout de suite, and will keep you updated on the progress. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I get carried away sometimes at GA review time, with visions of FA-class standards! Binksternet (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you think the article is progressing. I've adopted at least two-thrids of your suggestions, there's a few I 'disputed', i.e. gave some exposition, just note it on the review page if something's not clear. Thanks again for your attention to this article. --Ktlynch (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your great work on finishing off this article; and for your patience with my touching up, work and other wikipedia tasks combined with illness to slow me from getting much done on either set of responsibilities. Your keen eyes have definitely raised my standards in various areas. I hope to recall all reccomendations during any putative push for FA status. Best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you bet! My pleasure. I'll keep my eye on the article in case you take it to FAC. I hope you get well soon! Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'll take a break for it for the moment! The GA process was great for forcing me to look at the article afresh and critically, I had been working on it for three months alone, it becomes impossible to see flaws! I think I've found some areas for improvement, but need to gather new sources.

Btw, what you would think about moving the Biographies section completing to the main article, perhaps as the basis for the lead to that list? It originated when I demerged [|this horrendous list from the main article, then re-write it into prose, but now that the article has developed beyond that I think the space could be used better. Best, --[[User:Ktlynch|Ktlynch]] (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ugh! What a horrible list that was! I can see why you felt inclined to shovel it into its own sub-article. Regarding moving the current Biographies section, I think it performs most of the role of a notional Historiography section—a discussion of how the popular and scholarly view of Wilde has changed over the years. Me, I love historiography sections because they can help the reader understand why they thought one thing when the article says another. On the other hand, the article is getting kind of chubby at 81 kb... Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Richard Bong & "Class Exemplar ?"
Hello Binksternet Came across your revert here and edit summary 'query' about what "Class Exemplar for the Air Force Academy Class of 2003" meant. I was wondering too, so I did a Google on the phrase and got an article "The F-105 Thud, a legend flown by legends" on the "talkingproud.us" website. It involves the United States Air Force Academy. Quoting the relevant passage;
 * "The purpose of the Class Exemplar Program is to provide a clear and visible attachment to the great leaders of the past for a new generation of air leaders who will face new challenges in the future. The Class Exemplar serves as the honorary leader of the class, setting its personality and character. The Class Exemplar's model of innovative, pioneering leadership challenges cadets in each class to look forward into the Air Force they will soon be leading. The Class of 2000 was the first class to choose an Exemplar to lead them in the new millennium. Exemplar patches have been added to the cadet athletic jacket above the class year."

This link is a bit more official. Don't know how 'notable' this data is, hope it is of some interest. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That is interesting. It will be notable in the future if a news agency sees fit to comment on it. Binksternet (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Max Weinberg GA review
Thanks very much for doing this review. I've completed my changes and responses to your comments; see Talk:Max Weinberg/GA1. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Done! Good going. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

POV Pushing and disruptive edits by Rndm85
Hello, as you are likewise being affected by this editor, I am taking the opportunity to inform you of a warning I have posted to him. The editor in question is no longer confining his disruptive edits to a single article, but following me from article to article, making wholesale reverts to changes. I am duplicating my warning to him below. So far I have chosen not to report his conduct officially, but he has severely broken WP policy in several areas.

Update: (Rndm85) You have reverted nearly a dozen edits across not just this article, but Chernobyl compared to other radioactivity releases and Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Not only is this a 3RR violation, but you are inserting original research, POV pushing, and violating civility policy by personally attacking other editors. Please stop the edit warring and start working to improve these articles. FellGleaming (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Seneca Falls Convention GA review (2)
This has been open for over a month now, and I'd like to close it soon. How are you doing with addressing the outstanding issues? Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ach! Let me jump on it. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Subwoofer
Should it be made more clear that unlike other loudspeaker driver types, subwoofer refers to the enclosure sometimes as much as the driver itself. I noticed it especially in the Royal Device page where they kept referring to the horn as the subwoofer; then just calling the woofers the drivers to be mounted in the subwoofer. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * lol Never mind it is made pretty clear: Subwoofers are constructed by mounting one or more woofers in a well-braced wood or plastic enclosure. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 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) 21:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Curtis LeMay
A while back I attempted to edit the Cuban Missile Crisis section on the Curtis LeMay page and you reverted it back. I still think it has significant problems. The section begins by correctly noting LeMay wanted to bomb the nuclear missile sites in Cuba but the fourth sentence reads "Contrary to CIA estimates at the time, the Soviets in Cuba possessed twenty nuclear warheads for medium-range R-12 ballistic missiles capable of reaching U.S. cities (including Washington) and nine tactical nuclear missiles which the Soviet field commanders were delegated authority to use." To me this implies the CIA estimates were so wrong that they were unaware the U.S. was in any danger. The section then details that if the missiles had been launched, "many millions of U.S. citizens would have been killed. The ensuing SAC retaliatory thermonuclear strike would have killed roughly one hundred million Soviet citizens." I certainly think someone could read this section and go away thinking that if LeMay's plan had been followed millions of Americans and a hundred million Soviet citizens would have been killed. What do you think of this section and what are your suggestions for an improvement? Or do you like it the way it stands?--TL36 (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The wording as it stands directly reflects the book used as a source, Richard Rhodes' Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb. In it, on pages 575–576, he makes the exact point that the CIA estimates were wrong and that LeMay's solution would have killed many millions. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Binksternet, thanks for the link to pg. 575 of "Dark Sun." What CIA estimates are wrong? What CIA estimates?  They certainly knew by October 14th, there were missiles in Cuba.


 * I don't know what is written on preceding page 574 but unless I'm taking it out of context, pg. 575 taken by itself, seems to state the CIA didn't know at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis that the Soviets had (20)R-12 medium range missiles with nuclear warheads which is totally incorrect. The truth is the R-12, designated the SS-4 or Sandal at the time by NATO was photographed hundreds of times in Cuba by a U2 flight on 10/14/62. Over the next few days, SS-4s were photographed thousands of time.  The SS-4 Sandal was well known at that time by U.S. Intelligence to have an estimated range of 1,200 miles. The U2 photos of it being examined by the White House on October 16 is the beginning of what Robert Kennedy labeled the "thirteen days," which is the formal start of the crisis. There are scores of web sites that detail this but here's one link:


 * https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol46no1/article06.html It's near the bottom of the page under the heading "Denouement.")


 * There was nothing about the SS-4 Sandal presence in Cuba, its nuclear warhead or its range first learned in 1989 as "Dark Sun" seems to be implying. I can't give you the number of SS-4s that the CIA gave in 1962 but Robert Kennedy's memoirs talks about 40 missiles.


 * I'm thinking what was actually learned in 1989 was Soviet commanders had been delegated authority to launch the tactical missiles but my memory is hazy on that.


 * I've just been diagnosed with cancer but if physically able, I'll try to see if I can get some better insight into the Rhodes book. I'm still unsatisfied with the LeMay piece but finding out about this certainly takes priority at this time.--TL36 (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I reworked the section a very little bit to highlight the field authority rather than the quantity of missiles. If there is a remaining concern of yours, let me know, or dig in to the article yourself. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply--TL36 (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC).

Your GA nomination of 100 McAllister Street
The article 100 McAllister Street you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:100 McAllister Street for things which need to be addressed. S Masters (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Kurdo777 (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you, I had noticed. Always a pleasure. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please undo your last revert, or I would have to report you for your violation of WP:3RR:


 * 1st revert (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&diff=355101476&oldid=355099335)
 * 2nd revert (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&diff=355265336&oldid=355221042)
 * 3rd revert (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&diff=355342305&oldid=355340272)
 * 4th revert (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&diff=355345569&oldid=355344177)

Al within a day, a clear violation of WP:3RR. You have also used automated reverts in a content dispute, a function which should only be used for reverting vandalism --Kurdo777 (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The four diffs you list are not straight reverts; two of the four are attempts to bring compromise solutions by combining previous edits to build the article. Regarding automatic editing functions, you and I have tilted about the issue twice before, and each time it has come up, I have shown you the guidelines which say that automatic edits are the full responsibility of the editor who makes them, just the same as manual edits. No difference exists between automatic and manual in their application here. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk in article
What was this edit about? You put your own thoughts into the article page, not the talk page. Please do not talk in the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Thanks. I had stayed up all night to restructure the article and did leave several notes in it in error. Overall, I believe the restructure has made it easier to catch numerous redundancies and to bring some order to sections scattered all over the page.


 * By the way, you have introduced the word bazaar to the article and, as it has a special meaning in Iranian politics and society, do you mind either providing and sourcing a definition or deleting the reference. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The bit about the bazaar is from this edit by Work Permit. I agree that the concept of bazaar guilds and their political power needs to be described for the reader; I do not think it should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GANs
Hi, I found quite a few nominations of yours where the nomination hadn't been listed at WP:GAN, so you would have been waiting for ever for a review. I have fixed this and placed the articles in the correct place in the queue, by timestamp, so no worries, but in future, please remember to follow all the instructions at WP:Good article nominations/guidelines for your own benefit. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well! I pulled those GANs from the WP:GAN page for two reasons: I had too many in there at once and each one of them was going to need a bunch of massaging. In other words, I put too many in at once, and realizing this, I pulled most of them back out. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * However, I accept their presence now, and I think I can deal with those ones as they get reviewed. Maybe. ;^)
 * Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, just for future refrence, if you remove them from WP:GAN, you also need to remove the GAN template on the talk page as otherwise they will still appear in the Category:Good article nominees awaiting review. Cheers. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Timothy L. Pflueger
The article Timothy L. Pflueger you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Timothy L. Pflueger for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold
Please see Talk:Beatriz Michelena/GA1 for more information. This GA nomination is on hold. Chris (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It earned GA. Good job on your efforts to overhaul the article. Chris (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 100 McAllister Street
The article 100 McAllister Street you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:100 McAllister Street for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Thanks for all your hard work and congratulations! -- S Masters (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Another GA nomination on hold
Please see Talk:John Kenneth Hilliard/GA1 for more information. This nomination is hold. Chris (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Two GA's in one day. Impressive! Chris (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thanks for picking them up and reviewing them. Binksternet (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Chernobyl
Hello, there is a discussion below on whether the page labelled "Chernobyl Disaster", should be moved to the more common "Chernobyl Accident". If you'd like to contribute, you are invited to join in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chernobyl_disaster

FellGleaming (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Another GA nomination on hold
Please see Talk:Ralph Stackpole/GA1 for more information. This GA nomination is on hold. Chris (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgot to change the template to hold yesterday. Sorry about that. Chris (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not forget to finish Ralph Stackpole. Now I know why I had seen any edits since then. Please finish this by Sunday or I will fail the article for GA. Chris (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Stackpole passed GA. Congratulations. Chris (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

All that stuff that got cut from surround sound
Did that go somewhere else? Is there another article I should know about? Mainly that list of all the different formats that had the speaker config images. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC) PS I saw discovered articles such as wife acceptance factor which is a topical so unnotable that it was barely a suggestion in a google search, in fact it ranks equally with almost any non notable thing I've written so I should be alowed to. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to get stuff from the surround sound article history, go ahead. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I did. Hey what do you know about 10.2? I don't understand how "bandwidth" and the amount of digital space it takes can be a damn problem at all!!! What. the. hell. I mean 5.1 has been around since a 500 megabyte hard drive was big. Now we have multiple terrabyte hard drives. bandwidth cannot conceivably be a problem. I saw a youtube video by NYU claiming they had a dedicated 10.2 system in one of their new studios. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Bandwidth doesn't come from how deep the pool is, it comes from how much water you can get to flow at one time. The big hard drives of today still bog down with trying to send hi-fi sound out at high speed on a dozen or so channels. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Data rates, bandwidth; whatever; it doesn't matter. Computers and processing is so much exponentialy beyond where it was 20 years ago that it is a joke to think that they can't practiacally handle "twice" as much. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey the image on 10.2 is made from two images; but most of it came from an image on commons with no source or copyright thing. The same image comes up in an image search of 10.2 surround so it's almost certainly from there. It's actually not necessarily the right speaker setup. It is the 12.2 version with the "point" surround channels. I do want the image however that shows the 10.2 setup with all the angles and everything. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcadimensia/4523372777/

Pitch standard discussion
The merge tags that 256 C put on Pitch (music) link to discussion at Talk:Standard_concert_pitch (whose page does not yet exist.) I'd like to paste a copy of your comment from here to that new discussion, if you don't mind. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Be my guest. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Chassis ground
A lot of my vintage amps have a chassis ground post with a a large nut you can turn by hand. Should this acutally be connected to a ground. I don't but I noticed my Marantz 2235 zaping me. So does my much newer surround sound unit. Should I just literally connect a wire from the chassis of all my things to the ground. To the Earth. Literally the ground. Or should I be using a three prong outlet. I am in my barn with million year old wiring of course. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Never connect chassis ground directly to a strong earth ground separate from the electrical distribution, unless you really know what you are doing and have a licensed electrician designing the system. Instead, connect chassis ground to other chassis of your system, such as the chassis of a phonograph (record player) or similar, to fix buzzes. You don't have to connect anything at all if you turn the volume up high and don't hear any buzz. Don't fix it if it ain't broke. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I can turn the volume potentiometer of the 2235 all the way up and not hear anything even with four ohm speakers, so, I guess I'm good. It's zapping me is normal; that is, for the chassis to have some charge, is normal? Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Check out this mess! http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcadimensia/4526746922/sizes/l/ Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I can assure you no professional electrician designed this! http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcadimensia/3997347454/ Daniel (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a chance this won't get deleted?
thumb|right|180px It got an automatic tag that I think is one of those get deleted in a week tags but I'm not sure. I think it is cause if it wasn't a nomintaion tag would have been added to it by a user by now. I added a couple things to it. A rationale. There is no way I could make this or illustrate it without using that image. It's not simple like those stupid diagrams on every other multichannel audio articles. those stupid things that have like a bunch of squares representing speakers on a two dimensional plane connected by a line. That make the suboofer look like the listening area. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

One of these dumbass things: Can't make one for 10.2 Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey!
The image; it is going to be deleted on the 22nd with that template right? But I did add a rationale. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I remove the template? Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

tango nuevo
i think this article that you post in tango nuevo is completely wrong. It just describe the little history of a guy who likes to dance tango, who has been doing this for a while, but that visited Buenos Aires in 2007 for the first time. In the 40's there were practicas where tango was developing really fast: all of the movements that u see now, were talking from this time! But one thing is the social dance, and the other thing is the practica dance. The first one is limitated by the number of the people on the dance floor ( may be at 4 o'clock you could perform these crazy figures, but not earlier with the dance floor complete full of people), and the respect for the others dancers around you. In the practicas you do whatever you want to do... Please, before to post anything about tango, read, ask, interview, research... you can't just post based one article you read... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Losmuchachosdeantes (talk • contribs) 11:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You have no idea what my knowledge of tango is; the one reference I posted to back up Homer Ladas being called a nuevo tango dancer is not the only article or book I have read about tango. Here on Wikipedia, we put great emphasis on published sources, not on personal opinions. If you would like to add to the articles on tango, I welcome your contribution, but please use books and other published materials to back up what you write. Check out WP:CITE for some ideas. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

100 mcallister
i won't ticket you with uw-3rr, because you should know better. but if you continue, i will report you. --emerson7 01:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What's your goal on that page? I have quoted you WP:CITEHOW, where it says "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected", but you have not responded with your own reasoning. I wish to know why you need the page to change from its established reference style. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * above all, simplicity and clarity. the standard referencing scheme was fine the way it was before the machinations you added, and make little sense and serve no purpose. sorry i didn't respond earlier, i've had connection problems. cheers!


 * Okay, I see that my change of reference style was after you were involved in the article, so I apologize for digging my heels in. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I found it!
I found a song that has the vocals completely absent from the center channel. Ob la di ob la da by The Beatles. It's mapped solidly to the front left, front right, and surround channel using a Dolby Pro Logic decoder. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64885 do you participate there? Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not me. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy coat of arms
John Kennedy received the arms as a gift from Ireland, and his wife gave him a signet ring which is now housed in the Kennedy Library. Robert Kennedy climbed Mount Kennedy and planted a banner of the arms atop the mountain. Seems prominent enough if published in the National Geogrphic and other sources. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  16:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a notable activity for RFK but not for JFK, whose use of the coat of arms was personal, not public. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So? There is no requirement that things be exceedingly public to be included, simply notable.  The arms are that, given the White House ceremony, personal use, the expedition to the top of Mount Kennedy and their use on a battleship.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  05:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Frederick Douglass
I notice you changed the google books reference I put in for citation #5. I chose to use the "google book search" form rather than the exact reference you replaced it with. I had been using exact links like that, but then I looked into Wikipedia standards (such as they are) and it seems that there are good arguments for not doing it the way you did (see the bottom of this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check/Guidelines). I am quite willing to accept your way of doing it, but I'd be grateful if you can point me to some authoritative discussion that says this is the way to go.

Also, I see you deleted the uncited reference to Douglass's possible Native American ancestry. I'm currently reading a book that goes into great depth in researching his genealogy. The Native American issue is mentioned there. I plan to look it up tonight and add my findings (cited!) to the article. Bloody Viking (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot find the guideline I was thinking of, one which deprecates links to searches and instead recommends links to specific examples—it is quite possible that this bit I was going on has been taken out of the guidelines. I don't know... what I did find was over at Citing_sources/example_style where it gives a Google books example with specific page number, but does not say anything about searches. I will keep an eye out for the guideline that says something like 'do not use searches'. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure between us we can figure this out. Bloody Viking (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning - Misleading edit summaries
Do not remove content and make reverts, with misleading edit summaries to disguise your POV edits, as you have done here removing "democratically-elected" from the lead with a misleading edit summery.--Kurdo777 (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I do not try and disguise what I am doing. I am open and forthright, and I will answer any question you have about those edits. About democratically elected, that phrase appeared twice in a row, in two sentences. I made it appear in one only, in the interest of good writing, to avoid repetition and undue emphasis. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
A review of the last 250 edits at 1953 Iranian coup d'état reveals persistent, ongoing, and sterile edit warring mostly between you and Kurdo777. Edit warring states that, "Editors who violate this rule [the three-revert rule] are often blocked, although edit wars that don't involve 3RR violations can attract blocks too." Edit wars are a blockable offense even when a user makes three (partial or full) reverts on an article within 24 hours. Such blocks are especially warranted if the reverts continue to occur over a long period of time. This is the case between you and Kurdo777. This persistent and constant edit warring is harmful to the project, and gaming the system is even more disruptive when it occurs almost every single day. Please review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reverting and dispute resolution while you are blocked, and make a sincere effort to modify your behavior once it expires. There is no reason that you cannot discuss your revisions with other members of the community. Please consider why Wikipedia contributors are here in the first place: to build an encyclopedia, and not constantly undo one another's edits. Thank you. Khoikhoi 02:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am glad that you are striking a conciliatory tone. However, I am tentatively declining to unblock here. I think 3 days away from editing is not a lot to ask for what has been a pattern of unconstructive edits for many days at that article. It is clear from the article history that this is more than a few recent edits in which you overrode the edit conflict. You need to resolve your conflicts through talk page agreement, or mediation and arbitration, rather than by simply reverting so often. I suggest you use your time off to contact a mediator to help you, if you are serious about working better with others in the future. Dominic·t 05:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait; Binksternet is blocked!!!!!!! OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!! Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As one who has a particular interest in Iran's current political situation and its history, I want to tell you that your efforts to establish a neutral tone in the article are not unappreciated. ... I'm sure that sounds a little ass-kissy but you have spent many hours and now are blocked for your trouble. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My wife would like to know how she can get me blocked more often. While not editing, I have tackled some pesky household projects that were getting stale on the "To Do" list. ;^)
 * Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't take your block too seriously. Just a battle scar, as someone once wisely said to me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the good wishes, gents. Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive - 1 week to go
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Hey I've been creating quite a few borderline articles recently since it seems like it's been forever since I've gotten the excitement of getting new message last change things; but no one has been doing anything. Is Wikipedia losing steam? not in visitors but rather with editors. I've created surround channels, 5.1, added a lot to 10.2 and more! Maybe you being blocked/busy has a little to do with it. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hotel Valley Ho
The article Hotel Valley Ho you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Hotel Valley Ho for things which need to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Alas
Yeah the car speakers in the listening room boxes don't sound good. The comb filtering ones. They are also the ones in the barn in the old center channel picture where one was oriented 90 degrees off from the other. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Chrystal Macmillan GAN
I've completed the Chrystal Macmillan GA nomination review, and I have placed it on hold pending a couple of small improvements that need to be made. Please see Talk:Chrystal Macmillan/GA1 for details. Thank you, –MuZemike 18:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)