User talk:Binksternet/Archive10

1953 Iranian coup d'état

Hi, You write[1] that you have no in-depth knowledge of this subject and yet that stunning fact alone does not slow you in any way from fiercely reverting the contributions of other editors and making claims that your edits are "balanced."

Binksternet, if you have limited knowledge of the subject, what is the likelihood that you will understand what balance is?

Don't you see a contradiction in knowing so little about a subject yet fighting constantly about facts pertaining to it and making accusations that what other editors add is not balanced?

For the record, I will let you know that I check every reference and study every book reference in that article and own the most relevant books.

You have made many accusations against me, most of them negative.

I want you to know that I have taken the time to learn about this topic and have no axe to grind. I am a disinterested observer in that my line of full-time work is separate from the facts of this article or the history of the coup.

This is unlike BoogaLouie who has written on your archived talk page[2] that "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)"

While BoogaLouie may or may not have a real conflict of interest in editing articles related to the 1953 coup, it is clear to administrators and fellow editors alike that his views and edits are hopelessly prejudiced. And since you have arrived at the article, which you say was last June, you have most often sided with BoogaLouie. Don't you see the possibility that 1. given your professed lack of knowledge about the subject, and 2. your close association with BoogaLouie's views that have proven bias, that your behavior and views are also biased?

Where you live, what other articles you work on, and that you call yourself liberal has no meaning here.

I am interested in reflecting the dominant views of the most reliable sources that have written extensively on the topic of the 1953 coup in Iran. I have a problem with your line of arguments because, under BoogaLouie's wing, you have absorbed his prejudices and that causes a bottle neck on the talk page and in the article itself. If you want to continue to participate in editing this article, please obtain the relevant books and read them. Otherwise your participation is unfair and taxing to those of us who do spend the time to study the relevant histories.

Your have admitted that your militant opinions are uninformed!

For some time you have been arguing against Mossadegh. For awhile, I was amused because there was hardly a mention of Mossadegh in the article at the time you and Booga were arguing in favor of plying the article with negative comments about Mossadegh. I find it shocking that you would profess to have little knowledge of this subject yet continue to be as erratic and militant on this subject as you are. Your admission that you have so little knowledge of the subject earns no respect from me. You behave as if to say that you know little about the subject but have formed opinions that you relentlessly fight for. That suggests the criticisms of you for cherry-picking and prejudiced edits turn out to be true.

I hope this changes.

What you are doing to 1953 Iranian coup d'état is not good for Wikipedia. Skywriter (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that your role at the Iranian coup article is poisonous, and that my efforts to bring more information to the article are what is best for Wikipedia. I feel that your goal is to use Wikipedia to protect a positive view of Mosaddegh's legacy, and that you will always delete unflattering truths about him.

You write that my professed lack of in-depth knowledge of the coup is a "stunning fact", but this is an encyclopedia summing others' work. The encyclopedia describes mainstream views of whatever topic the article is, and it mentions notable views that go against the mainstream. It is fairly easy for me to perform a quick study on a topic, and make a "stunning" article based on that quick study. It is the writing of encyclopedia articles that I am good at, and my first impression of the Iranian coup article was that it was a very poorly written article which failed to describe simple facts, such as a chronological timeline of events.

Just for comparison, the lack of in-depth knowledge about the subject did not prevent me from taking the Port Chicago disaster article and improving it until it reached Featured Article class. Before me, you had edited that article in July and November 2007—beating me to it since I did not even start at Wikipedia until August 2007, and I did not edit the article until October. I did not know anything about the incident up to that time except that it could not have been a nuclear explosion, as the U.S. was not able at that time to create and detonate a nuclear device. It was the nuclear information I was confident in, as I had studied that subject. Only in December 2007 did I begin to look closely at the sources and rewrite the Port Chicago article. I think I did a bang-up job, with the help of others who were more expert in Wiki ways.

Another FA-class article I brought to life was the one about Henry Edwards (entomologist), who I had absolutely no idea about until I saw him mentioned in a history of the Bohemian Club. Again, I performed a quick-study of the subject, and wrote an article that eventually improved to featured status. For more examples, take a look at my user page and you'll see a list of the 18 articles that I have brought to Good Article status. The only one of them that I had previous knowledge about was the one on subwoofer (I am an audio engineer), and if you really want to know, I think that one still could use a lot of English writing and subject comprehension improvement. It has far to go before ever reaching FA status. My previous knowledge of the topic did not help me very much in fixing the article.

...Which is where we are with the 1953 Iranian coup d'état article. You have edited it for a while, and you have studied the subject, but you have apparently gained a point of view about it which should never have been injected into the article. Your previous knowledge is not helping you see that the sources account for a small dose of unflattering descriptions of Mosaddegh and his actions, especially in a timeline of his political actions, and that including a measured amount of these descriptions would go a long way to explaining to the reader how such a saintly and heroic leader could be toppled.

What I get from BoogaLouie is a sense of outrage that these very small truths that would be so helpful to reader understanding are always deleted out of hand by what appears to be a pro-Mosaddegh group of users. I get sources from BoogaLouie, and I go look at these sources, reading them through. I gauge their importance relative to the reader's benefit, and against the desire to keep the article simple and easy to understand. I introduce information to the article that should be there. Others such as Kurdo777, Wayiran and yourself delete this helpful information. Who is helping the reader?

Because of my experience at shaping FA- and GA-class articles, I am very much able to tell what a good Wikipedia article is. I know what a lead section should contain, I know what kind of repetition is too much, I know what kind of information gaps the reader will stumble over, I know what the reader new to the subject expects to see. I know when giant quotes are useful, and when they are not. I consider my participation an element of the article's betterment. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

GAN backlog elimination drives chart up to 1 May On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, I'd like to especially thank you for your efforts over this past month's GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a complete success, which hopefully results in more expedient good article reviews, increasing users' confidence in the good article nomination processes. Even if you made just a small contribution, it still helped contribute to the success of this drive. Here is what we have accomplished this last month in this drive. 661 total nominations were reviewed. 541 of them passed (~81.8%), 97 (~14.7%) failed, and 23 (~3.5%) ended on hold. The WP:GAN page started at 110,126 bytes length on 1 April and ended at 43,387 bytes length at the end of 30 April (a 66,739 byte reduction in the page, about 60.6% less). Excluding extremes, the longest wait for someone's GAN to be review was about 11.5 weeks at the beginning. (I mistook the figure when I reported to the Signpost that it was 13.) At the end, with the exception of one that was relisted, the longest wait is now at 10 days. 63 different users participated, each having completed at least one GAN, with others also having helped out behind-the-scenes in making the drive a success. The drive started with 463 GA nominations remaining and 388 unreviewed. At the end of the month, we ended with 89 remaining (374 or about 80.8% less) and 47 unreviewed (341 or about 87.9% less). For those who have accomplished certain objectives in the drive, awards will be coming shortly. Again, thank you for your help in the drive, and I hope you continue to help review GA nominations and overall improve the quality of articles here on Wikipedia.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia California mailing list now active

Please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_California#Mailing_list

Would you please copy this note to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alison or email her if you can? I think her talk page is semi-protected. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Binksternet (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oz vs US spelling

Although I can speak American, I'm afraid I have difficulty remembering how to spell American.
I appreciate your help in modifying my spelling. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 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) 19:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For reviewing 10 good article nominations during the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive, I hereby present you The Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Good work! –MuZemike 23:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That was fun, and it was really good for the wiki! Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Meetup

How was the meetup by the way? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sparsely attended with Wikimedia coding people outnumbering volunteer content editors. Interesting group, good conversation. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to edit. Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the shot! Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

American Dream

Hello. You reverted out a book reference I put in the article American Dream which I thought and think is relevant to the American Dream and documents part of the phenomenon.

• Frank, Robert L. (2007). Richistan: A Journey Through the American Wealth Boom and the Lives of the New Rich. Crown Publishing Group. p. 277. ISBN 0307339262.

According to the log, your rationale for doing so was:

• "04:53, 11 May 2010 Binksternet (talk | contribs) (7,628 bytes) (Undid revision 361394795 by Wikiklrsc (talk) No occurrence of the phrase "American Dream" in that book)".

No occurrence of tee phrase "American Dream" in that book? I should think that it wouldn't be necessary per se. Have you read the entire book, which I have done? It's not 100% on the American Dream, per se, but the book shows how people have achieved it. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the book includes a fine account of how wealth moves through the American economy, and how it affects people. However, the article American Dream does not need the book if it contains no mention at all of the American Dream. Putting the book in there as a reference is giving it attributes it does not claim. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, points taken. Thanks and bests. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Budanova

ehi, still the same aggressive type!! :) Good... but you see, I did the only qoutes on that article... I am going to publish a book about Soviet airwomen and I know what I say... the Polunina book that I quote is the most reliable book about the subject avaliable even in Russia from where I have just come back... and it states that the first kill were those I wrote, have a look on page 138, it is clear even if You dont read cyrillic... You sould ask the guy (is that You by chance) who wrote the article from where he took his informations he wrote down? On the web? Probably... Relax Blinksternet...--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked you what authors in response to your sentence beginnging "But, according to other authors..." I understand that Polunina wrote that Budanova made two kills on 2 October 1942. I understand that you added this bit with its reference.

The first version of that article includes the 6 October story; it was composed in 2005 by User:Pibwl with no sources or footnotes. If you cannot find a source, and I cannot find a source, it would be better to delete that bit. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dobre Utra... I have all the books written in English about Soviet airwomen and several in Russian and I have not found anything about 6 of november... there are very few sources about Budanova... I met in Moscow the nieces of Budanova but still they dont have su much about her... her logbook and the regimental register was lost so what is known relies (?) on memories of the witnesses or are chats...

da skorogo... ah... no: another thing: I have not found on my books that Litvyak ever flew a La- 5, when they went to Stalingrad they still had the Yak-1 that had been delivered to them after the training in Engels... I t is something that I saw only in the web and I think is absolutely wrong... shall we keep it?? Da skorogo ... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Panasonic Thrusters

Ever heard of them? Passive radiator two 10 inch woofers one dome tweeter. Fairly high efficeny, high end for Panasonic. http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=717689#post717689 Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring Harry Hopkins

You appear to be overly protective in preserving Rjenson's Wiki page on Harry Hopkins. Are there two sets of standards in play here, one for Wiki editors and one for Rjenson? Why do you characterize my addition of cited material as "disruptive edits?" Since when is contributing information to a Wiki page using the proper Wiki procedures considered "vandalizing" the Wiki? I didn't delete Rjenson's information as he did with mine. My addition was not in violation of the Wiki rules for editing as it contained bona fide citations in the proper format. How is it that you neglected to warn Rjenson of the three-revert rule after he violated it several times? Ffolkes

I see myself as protective, not "overly protective". What I protect against is the introduction of a 180° change in article viewpoint from a fringe source; especially one that is not accompanied by mainstream scholarly rebuttal. You seem to have taken to heart the Herbert Romerstein / Eric Breindel book The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitors, a pop culture book which stands alone in accusing Hopkins of treason. KGB officer Oleg Gordievsky, reminiscing decades later (and without access to archives), said that Hopkins was an unconscious agent, not a treasonous one. John E. Haynes and Harvey Klehr, in their book Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, acquit Hopkins of all treason, saying "we regard Gordievsky's remarks as too weak a basis for any identification of Hopkins as a Soviet agent, conscious or unconscious". Haynes and Klehr instead point to Lauchlin Currie as the American agent bent on treason. Your sense that Hopkins was a traitor is not supported by all the sources. As such, that supposition cannot be offered to the reader without a full development of the situation Hopkins was in, and without a full discussion of contradictory conclusions.

By the way, the Harry Hopkins article does not belong to User:Rjensen. It was created in 2004 by User:MichiganDan and released to the world. The article belongs to everybody. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is fascinating that you now reveal the true reason behind your one-sided "edit warring warnings." That you would characterize the well-researched and annotated Romerstein/Brendel work as a "fringe source" and a "pop culture" book is revealing. But are you aware that Walter & Miriam Schneior of The Nation are equally dismissive of the John Haynes and Harvey Klehr Venona book that you seem to believe has credibility that is lacking in Romerstein/Breindel book.

"As one reads Haynes and Klehr's "Venona," one gradually perceives that the book has two motifs. The first is a straightforward account of the NSA's decoding program; the second could aptly be titled "a conspiracy so immense."

Perhaps you should list all the works that are considered by your nebulous standards to be "fringe sources" so perspective Wiki editors can anticipate those "edit warring warnings." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.7.68 (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn, you discovered my secret connection with the international cabal of conspiracy. Please don't tell anyone else. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This addition of mine, mentioning Oleg Gordievsky, Eric Breindel, Herbert Romerstein and Verne W. Newton may have addressed your concerns. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sound recording and reproduction

Without discussion you removed my reference to Erlmann's work in the article on Sound recording and reproduction. I think the book and article are quite relevant to the topic. AND you also removed it in the Walkman article. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed it from the Walkman article because, as an external link in the "Further reading" section, the linked collection of essays helps the reader not at all. In "Thinking About Sound, Proximity, and Distance in Western Experience: The Case of Odysseus's Walkman", Michael Bull writes not about the Walkman but about a sense of social distance brought about through the use of personal electronic devices. He personifies social distance in his essay as the Walkman; the Walkman is his touchstone, his chosen context. He could just as well have chosen the iPod, any cell phone, any Bluetooth device, or truly any sort of portable electronic thingamajig which comes between a person's focus of attention and his immediate environment. The essay would be a good reference for a notional Wikipedia article entitled Personal electronic devices and social distance. At the Walkman article, it fails utterly to address the main topic.

I own (and highly appreciate) Emily Thompson's book The Soundscape of Modernity. In your link, her essay on how film sound has changed human culture is a subset of that book, a revisitation and brief tangential expansion intended for another audience, focusing on the aspect of sound for film. If the essay were to be used on Wikipedia, interesting facts from it could be brought into the article sound film rather than it being provided lazily as a "Further reading" selection. The essay's relationship with the sound recording and reproduction article is tenuous at best; it could possibly be used to back up a fact about sound on film, but as an external link or "Further reading" it falls short. It is not purely about "sound recording and reproduction", it is about a subset of the topic, film sound; in fact, it is about the social aspects of film sound, making it a subset of that topic.

Bringing an external link (under the "Further reading" section) into an article requires justification; without such justification, taking it out without discussion is allowed. At WP:EL, the guideline says "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." At the bottom of that guideline is the injunction, "Disputed links should be excluded by default until there is a consensus to include them." You have not yet achieved consensus. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for your detailed reply. I've read the essays and books too. I still don't see quite anything too terribly adrift in these additions I made. I'll have to figure out what to do next. I never put anything on WP, in my five years of editing, that I haven't read in great detail, and more than once and I only add things I think are pertinent. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

However, I don't thank you anymore since you've gone further and deleted all my references to Erlmann's book in many articles I added it. I don't appreciate that. I will have to take this to a higher level. Your behavior is intolerable. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The book is a collection of essays, and each essay may be pertinent to some article or another, but the articles I removed it from were ones in which the indicated essay (if there was one) was not purely about the article's topic. Perhaps, if your aim is to bring the book a wider readership, you can use it to add relevant prose to an article. Tacking books on at the end of articles is a poor way to add content, compared to actually adding content in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My aim is not to "bring the book to a wider readership" at all. After having read and re-read the book, I thought it was pertinent in the articles I added it to. We have a genuine difference of opinion. I don't haphazardly add such material to articles without thinking about it in depth. For example, for the article on Music therapy, I thought the essay "Raising Spirits ..." was quite relevant. And the social, musical, and aural implications of the Walkman device and phenomenon I thought was relevant in the articles I added it to. I understand that these are essays. But so were many other essays by noted authors and they're included in other articles. I'm not sure where to go from here. I've asked someone else to have a look. I hear what you're saying but I'm not totally convinced the book's uselessness and irrelevance. I have no connection to the author or publisher, of course. This is not a promotion. With all due respect, let's see where we can go from here. I appreciate your engaging this discussion given that there's so much else to do, like write articles for Wikipedia. I'm not a user page discussion aficionado. I'm more interested in knowledge. Thanks. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 03:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This might be

... of interest to you. Talk:I'll Remember#A Class promotion --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, FA Class is tough these days. Binksternet (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

RE edit war warning: cease fire declared

Hi, Binksternet! Thanks for warning about the possibility of an edit war at User talk:76.191.236.182. Not to worry, I wasn't going to let it get to that point - I was well aware that I had already made two reverts myself. That user and I are now in contact, and it is clear that he/she was acting in good faith. It appears there really was some kind of flea circus event at the 1935 San Diego expo, even though it sounds like a joke and no trace of it can be found online except for a recent puppet show about it. I will work things out with the other person and we will agree on a more encyclopedic way of getting the information out. Thanks for trying to keep things on an even keel. --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I promise to hold my fire but I will keep an eye on the teacup in case there's a tempest. ^¸^

Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The person is new but they have now been warned, several times - so if they revert again feel free to blast away. --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony image

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at Scewing's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to support such a fine image! Perfect. Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois)/archive1

Since you were involved in one FAC in the Millennium Park WP:FT this year, I thought you might be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois)/archive1‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. I will see how my day shapes up. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Vandlzed page

It seems article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THE%E2%80%93QS_World_University_Rankings,_2009" has be vandlized Can you possibly fix it? I'm not any good in editing pages... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.188.34 (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I can restore that. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

re: Theater article title format

Thanks for your interesting comment. I think you really asked two questions: 1) Why the (city, state) disambig format; and 2) Why hasn't it been applied throughout. To the first the answer is simply a matter of maintaining a consistent format among similar article regardless of the prominence of the city in question. To the second, a few reasons: One, I felt the city, state format only applied in the case of US theaters and so didn't attempt anything similar in the articles of theaters in other countries. Regarding other US article not in the city, state format, it's a work in progress. I by no means am the arbiter here, so when I was unsure I left it alone for others to attend to or until I had a better idea. For instance, I never got a sense of the right format for theaters in Manhattan, "New York City" "New York, New York" "Broadway" "Manhattan" all I think have been used some in articles where the editors felt strongly, as I remember, so I left those for another day when some consensus might be reached. I certainly never got to all articles on US theaters and have limited time like all editors on Wikipedia. Theaters with names unique in Wikipedia, as I understand it, should not have a further geographical disambiguation. I'm not familiar with Hollywood Palladium, but if that is the official name of the theater as opposed to a common term of reference then it should stand that way even though there may also be a Palladium (London), etc. Bottom line, I do think this is the best disambig format and that titles should have the actual theater name followed by (City, State) in parentheses for ease of search and consistency of format; I never planned to personally get to every single article and I left those alone that I was unsure about. Hope this sheds some light on the work that I did some months ago. Best wishes Markhh (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk page protocol

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASurrender_of_Japan&action=historysubmit&diff=363451933&oldid=363440813, I feel that I must complement you, not only on the fact that you got off your bum and did something, but the way you did it, and the way you communicated it to me. I am very impressed.
Saying "Thank you" seems inadequate. Never-the-less, Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh. You made a request:

"Pdfpdf, do not divide others' Talk page entries, leaving unsigned orphan sections. This makes it devilishly difficult for later readers to figure out the flow."

OK. No problem - "Will do". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And then there's:

I refactored a series of talk page entries you made, ones in which you trivially and casually interrupted entries made by others. At WP:TPO, the guideline recommends against interruptions to entries except in unusual circumstances, and asks the interrupting editor to maintain original authorship of orphaned entries by using {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} just before the break, before your own interruption, or by copying and pasting the original signature and timestamp. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Good! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Yosemite area/archive1

I think the article is much better now. Please take another look. --mav (reviews needed) 17:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

World War Two Timeline Project

I thought I would get in touch with you regarding the conflict of interest rollback of the external link I added to the World War Two Article. I was hoping we could discuss the details and perhaps I can resolve the issue on my end? I think the site has real value and because of it's close ties to Wikipedia (each data point in my mashup links back to the appropriate Wikipedia article as the authoritative source on that topic) it is a good candidate for the external links section. The dataset I am building is is (as far as I know) a unique resource for World War Two:

• WikiPedia ww2 article
• Geographic location (region)
• chronological period

I am not sure if this is the appropriate place to discuss the issue, so please let me know if I am in the wrong spot :). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannonade (talk • contribs) 04:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Since your effort is a mashup of Wikipedia articles, you should approach the Wikimedia Foundation about it. Another venue for discussion of WWII links is, of course, the Talk:World War II page. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try both of those places and see what people think.Cannonade (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision

Would I need to link a video of Jeff Hughell playing his 7-string bass in order for you to get that he's an extended-range bassist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deitrition (talk • contribs) 06:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Is he a notable player of that type of instrument? Have there been news items about him playing extended-range bass? Binksternet (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Soviet B-17

Sorry it was "the Kazan' aircraft factory". I had/have a problem to the left eye and sometimes I dont read well --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

History of the Yosemite area

Hi Binksternet - Could you take another look at the FAR for History of the Yosemite area, located at Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Yosemite area/archive1? Mav has done a significant amount of work on it during the FAR, and it has since moved to the FARC section. Your futher input would be appreciated. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been keeping half an eye on the progress of the FAR and article improvement, and I will look at it carefully when I get the chance. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheater plug

You might be interested in this: Talk:Cheater plug#Name of this article. PleaseStand ^(talk) 18:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Got it! Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism edit of DVD-Audio

Hi, I'm new to editing and would like to understand how my edit to DVD-Audio May 30 is vandalism of the previous revision. Can it be changed or modified in some way as to be "non-vandalism" ? Thanks, Jensigner (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I saw your (Binksternet) comment about soapboxing. I didn't intend to soapbox or promote any product but was demonstrating how to create DVD-Audio content with specific tools from sources that are already mentioned on the DVD-Audio page. I thought I was being rather impartial by including both open source and commercial products without imparting any bias, except to point out a few features or lack of. Many of my articles are of this nature at www.jensign.com and I have written many articles with absolutely no intention or hidden agenda to promote any of them.

In fact I was recently considering contributing my entire web content (as suggested by several colleatures) as a wikibook but it seems like it would not be accepted. Cheers .. Jensigner (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There were several problems with your addition to DVD Audio. You added three paragraphs of information, and each one contained a link to your website:

• http://www.jensign.com/dvda_WL6/
• http://www.jensign.com/dvdaudio/
• http://www.jensign.com/dvda_multicd/

The first thing I saw was your user name Jensigner and the web domain jensign, which made me think you were linking to yourself. Wikipedia considers this a conflict of interest, per WP:COI, and promotional advertising, per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Also, your web pages list Wikipedia as a source, which makes their use here a circular reference; Wikipedia facts being supported by webpages that are supported by Wikipedia. The three jensign webpages for which you provided links do not have dates or authors shown, so their provenance is unknown. The reader might assume that the author is the guy listed at www.jensign.com, and if that is the case, the author is known for crypto, not for DVD Audio tutoring. This creates problems with you as a reliable source for DVD facts, per WP:RS. Please give the various WP guidelines a good read, as they will reveal to you various ways in which you can add good, helpful content to the encyclopedia without bending the rules. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearly explaining the rules. I'm certainly no expert (in a professional sense) in DVD-Audio but I was just trying to share my own personal design and usage experiences. The edit and information I posted is clearly not appropriate for inclusion here, even though based on responses, it is clearly very useful to many newcomers to DVD-Audio. It is therefore better that the links don't appear in Wikipedia with these rules. All the best Jensigner (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge

As far as I can tell, this article has never undergone a GA review and is not listed at WP:GA, yet you have tagged it as a GA via the assessments. Is there a reasonable explanation, because the state of the article with multiple fact tags is definitely not of GA quality. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I pulled the trigger on that without thinking it through. The articles was submitted for FA without having gone through GA? This fact caught me off guard, not paying attention. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your addition of Leo Donald Volkmer to the List of World War II aces from the United States

Good Afternoon.

I noticed you added Leo Donald Volkmer to the WWII aces list.

May I ask your source? I did a search on the Air Force Historical Research Agency Aerial Victory Credits (http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/avc_query.asp) and searched on "last name begins with Volkmer. The result was

NAME RANK UNIT DATE ENEMY US WAR WEAPON CREDITS

VOLKMER LEO D 2nd Lieutenant 365FTR 04-30-1945 Unknown Unknown WW2 Unknown 2

Thanks

ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecragg (talk • contribs) 22:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I was going by a personal memoir of someone who worked for Volkmer after his war experience, but the USAF website is much more authoritative. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nazi ships

Re your query, see WT:SHIPS for details. There was only one Germany during the Second World War - Nazi Germany. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a wasted effort, as the term 'Germany' catches all merchant ships of that nation during that, or any, war. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, but would you please add to the discussion at the Wikiproject. Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 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) 17:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Yosemite area/archive1

Article has improved a great deal since you last commented on it, and it is now a FARC. Could you take another look and comment or make a declaration? Thanks. :) --mav (reviews needed) 16:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

	<font=3> Thanks for your helpful comments and edits - Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois) is now a Featured Article! TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. monosock 18:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why am I getting this message? Mono's delivery method is random, so you probably showed up somewhere Mono went. :)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I'm Claudi Balaguer, a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. I know that you are also trying to obtain a Californian Chapter and I sincerely hope that you will succeed and I think that all the members of our association feel likewise because denying it implies, in my opinion, going against the spreading of knowledge creating boundaries to creativity and collective voluntary work. So maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages, cultures and local or regional entities in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! I wish I could visit your great, beautiful and sunny region once more soon! If you ever need my (probably "our" too) help you can count on me even though I'm currently really far away from California. Capsot (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

FARC of History of the Yosemite area

Your comments during the FAR of History of the Yosemite area about comprehensiveness issues were very helpful to me; I acted on each point and I think the article is much better as a result. Similar specificity concerning your theme comment will also be most helpful. Cheers. --mav (reviews needed) 02:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

John R. Brinkley

Hey, I noticed that you added the image of Brinkley to this article. As part of the GA review, it was requested that we attempt to add more illustrations (perhaps one of his advertisements). I've found quite a few items that might qualify at the Kansas Historical Society's web site, but I am not very familiar with image copyright and fair use doctrine, so I wonder if you might take a look at what they have to offer. I've made some comments along these lines, along with some links to images held by the historical society, for ease of reference, at the review page Talk:John R. Brinkley/GA1. If you have a moment, and are so inclined, I'd appreciate your expertise. — e. ripley\^talk 17:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

KSHS website has more images that I can swipe put a fair use rationale on, but I don't see the advertisements you mention. Any specific requests? Do you have URLs? Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this one springs to mind most immediately. It's a marketing/informational brochure. My concern with using things from there is that their FAQ on usage here first says materials posted online have been evaluated and determined not to violate any copyrights and adhere to fair use, but then directly below it, it says in order to reuse them you have to fill out a permission form "and pay applicable usage fees" for the purposes of using them on another website. I looked through what they considered "applicable" to see if Wikipedia could be exempted, but the answer wasn't clear to me. Maybe I'm misreading something or reading more into it than necessary, but that's why I've stayed away from their materials, even though they're imminently related. — e. ripley\^talk 18:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I took a photo of mother and son from that brochure. I think Wikipedia's fair use rationale sidesteps the KSHS request for permission and for usage fees. The images I use from their website are very small and low quality; not the kind that can be reproduced for profit. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. — e. ripley\^talk 19:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

P-40 EN WIKI

I strongly advice you to stop deleting my contributs or my "citation needed" or I will request the intervention of an admin about your uncorrect behaviour, Wikipedia is not your feud and i am not impressed at all by all your virtual medal and awards... I am serious! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fantastic—fire away. It is high time that your contributions are examined in detail. I stand by my carefully considered P-40 reversion, away from your too-general conclusion which violated WP:NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

PHOTO REQUEST: Russian cruiser Varyag (1983)

If you can could you get a snap of the Russian cruiser Varyag (1983)?

Or maybe you know somebody who can?

Thanks. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering what unfamiliar ship it was that was sending such unusually oily smoke into the sky, the ship docked just south of the Bay Bridge pier. Your photo request missed me by a day: today I was in San Francisco with a relatively flexible schedule after lunch, during which I could have snapped a shot, but now I am stuck working long hours in the East Bay for a few days. Binksternet (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Black Project report

As a member of the Black Project working group I wanted to leave this message here to inform you that the most recent black project report has been completed and is now available for reading at this link.

Mosadegh

Please stop POV-pushing on Mosaddegh-related pages. Democratically-elected is an undisputed fact, supported by 100's of references and academic, search google books for Mosaddegh+democratically elected. --Wayiran (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Claritas did not agree with you, making this edit on June 9. Prime Ministers in Iran are appointed by the Shah. In 1951, however, Mosaddegh engineered an election, winning an unrealistic 90% of the vote. The next year when Mosaddegh resigned, the Shah appointed him Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Sources exist which question the validity of the previous year's election, of the way it was carried out, and of its result. The fact of his being democratically elected is in question, and should not be claimed as a flat out fact in the lead section. Furthermore, "The Mosaddegh Project" will never be an acceptable, reliable reference as its founder and owner, a graphic artist, has no notability for scholarship in Iranian politics. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Re

I have been in an area with limited internet access as of late, hence my sparse editing. Firstly, the issue was discussed in detail with two CheckUsers, and I made an administrative judgment based on behavior (for example, the same article editing pattern by both users). I am not going to reveal detailed IP information for privacy reasons, but this is a complex case (you are incorrect when you state that sleeper accounts make edits). Secondly, my lack of response to your comment was not exclusive to you and I did not specifically ignore it because it was written by you. Finally, it is incorrect to assume that making false accusations against an administrator will make you immune from further scrutiny when it comes to your edit warring and disruptive behavior. Regardless of the fact that I edit a certain range of pages, my actions are as an administrator and I am not involved as an editor in any of the said disputes. Khoikhoi 03:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I wrote, "Khoikhoi is a major contributor to Iran-related articles and is thus not impartial." Is that the sentence you are referring to when you talk about me making false accusations against an administrator? If it is not that sentence, I have no idea what it would be. Note that the above-quoted sentence does not constitute an accusation; it is a conclusion I drew from observation. Also, if you are involved as an administrator in Iranian topics, then by definition you are involved—you don't have to be an editor to be involved. Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I had no intention of trying to buy immunity from scrutiny in my recent ANI action involving you. That idea of yours is way off the mark. Instead, I welcome scrutiny. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Most arbitrators and administrators will tell you that being an expert in a particular area is actually considered an asset when it comes to administrative actions and decisions on ethnic and political disputes in a particular region. Being involved translates to getting engaged in a particular dispute, which I am not. So please use the terms “involved” and “unfit” more appropriately next time. Khoikhoi 22:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Date formats...

Do you know what guidelines talk about how to set up military date formats? For the life of me, I can't remeber, and it's come up on [the Raid on Cabanatuan talk page]... if you could help, I'd appreciate it... thanks... Magus732 (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history the only practice they adopted at variance to the standard WP:DATE guideline is that a military article may use international dmy style dates even if the article has a U.S. slant, where civilians use mdy style. I do not see this variance posted at the project—it's just my observation. Binksternet (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Susan B. Anthony. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --InaMaka (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your help

I'm out of prison for the time being! although I don't have nearly as much time as I use to to work on wikipedia. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Stay out of trouble, please; make it stick. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You've got to believe me I am NOT Revolution Expert! Someone has gone to some trouble to get my block's extended and I will try to work on clearing my name before getting back into 1953 coup.

If I have time perhaps I can repay you with some project grunt work, although I have no expertise on much besides Middle East history and Islamism. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

California Star award

Thank you for the award, I appreciate it. I was starting to wonder if the page had any watchers at all. I'm enjoying learning about various historical places in our great state. Again, thanks! Marcia Wright (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You are quite welcome! I have been tracking your extensive work on that page for the past week, but I had no constructive criticisms to offer. Instead, I wanted to let you know people appreciate your hard work! The fund of public knowledge has been increased by your efforts. ^_^

Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Modern use of Airships

Howdy, it seems that you deleted again the "Military use" comment. I dont see any kind of advertisement in that writing. Mighby my english is not perfect being Finnish and all, but really. I dont see the reasons. Mighby there is good reasons why to improve the writing, but deleting it compleatly..? I mean the Airship article is full of mentions for example Zeppelin. That is actually company that produces even nowday airships that are branded as "Zeppelin NT" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.141.241 (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You do not see the advertisement? The text you added is a straight text dump taken from Northrop Grumman press releases, using peacock phrases such as "unblinking, persistent eye" to describe the venture. Rewrite the bit for encyclopedia style. Binksternet (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Susan B. Anthony

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Susan B. Anthony. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --InaMaka (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have closed your report, and you may see the result at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:InaMaka reported by User:Binksternet (Result: protected). Please also remember that whenever you raise a discussion about another user's edits, you are required to notify them that you have done so. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The June 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) 18:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Necessary or unnecessary, that's the question

Sorry but when a detail becomes "unnecessary"? Regards from Italy --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

When does a detail become unnecessary? I judge that kind of stuff by feel. Thanks for asking. Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Will do, originally I only nominated the articles because they had enough sources and had significant coverage which was what I originally thought of George Washington, I've asked for help on this article and I and a couple of others are now in the process of fixing it. Another reason why was because I wanted to see where the article falls short. Now that you know my reasoning I believe I owe you an apology. I apologise and will refrain from GANs unless I actively contribute to an article I nominate. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Response at your talk page. Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've responded. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User "Filmcracker" edits to The High and the Mighty

Please see the history of this user ([3]) which is now also linked in the The High & The Mighty article's talk page and has been reported to AN/I. His/her revisions are never made to make an article better, but to disrupt the consensus already achieved by other editors over time. This is a long standing practice of this disruptive editor. This user never operates in good faith as his/her record clearly shows, and the revisions he/she made to the article fly in the face of the consensus that had been developed with regard to the plot and casting sections over the last week. Centpacrr (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have been the target of a wikistalker. At the film article, I looked at the version proffered by the editor in question and found it to have greater cohesiveness and clarity. I was not keeping close tabs on the talk page developments, and only had time to look at the article today. What I saw was a superior version that should be allowed to stand. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not the only victim of this Wikistalker but one of a great many as a review of his/her history reveals. As i said i don't really care how the two sections are arranged, but every time they are changed I have to go back and alter the plot text so that it does not become redundant or have information out of order. I expect that the other editors who didn't like this formatting are now going to object and want it reverted. But as I said, the only reason that this sockpuppet registered yet another new account and started editing this article is because I am a major contributor to it (note that the only changes he/she made were to earlier edits of mine), and were made in an attempt to start an edit war as opposed to he/she having any interest in the topic itself. All of these practices have been a pattern of his/her disruptive editing activities on Wikipedia going back at least to 2007 as is well documented here, (The current AN/I complaint is posted here to which you are welcome to comment.) Centpacrr (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The High and the Mighty

I made some changes to the formatting of the cast list in this article so that it looks more like other movie articles. Could you take a look at it and see what you think? Thanks! Filmcracker (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Filmcracker" is a sockpuppet user who is continuing to make edits against longstanding consensus to this article. There is currently another AN/I complaint against him/her for using multiple accounts for Wikistalking, disruptive editing, etc, which you can see here, and the previous AN/I case against this user in June here which resulted in a still standing indefinite block of a previous sockpuppet account as "Techwriter2B". Any comments you have (pro or con) should be posted in the current AN/I discussion.
  
• While some of his/her edits may look "reasonable" on their face, the purpose for which those were made certainly are not, and this is another well documented pattern of his/her past behavior on Wikipedia over more than three years. He/she will make what appear to be a few good faith edits to convince another editor whose support he/she is soliciting that he/she is only interested in making positive contributions. This, however, is actually a smokescreen he/she has used many times before. By feigning good faith and then seeking the "advice and support" of otherwise uninvolved editors for his/her "reasonable" edits, he/she is really just attempting to "use" those editors (in this case you) to then advance his/her real agendas of misconduct, disruptive editing, Wikistalking, etc.
• A review of his/her record reveals that this user long ago forfeited any assumption of even acting in good faith no matter how "reasonable" he/she may sometimes "appear" to be acting on the surface. Therefore until this is resolved in AN/I, please do not make changes to the article itself at his/her behest. Centpacrr (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bill Porter (sound engineer)

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Republic XF-84H Thunderscreech

Copyedit from the Republic XF-84H Thunderscreech talk page: "As to writing style, for a hoot, I took one paragraph from the article that I had exclusively written and submitted it to a writing style check. The analysis indicated that the style matched precisely that of: David Foster Wallace (February 21, 1962 – September 12, 2008) a professor at Pomona College in Claremont, California, noted as an American author of novels, essays and short stories. He was widely known for his 1996 novel Infinite Jest, which Time included in its All-Time 100 Greatest Novels list (covering the period 1923–2006). So, you can see that writing style can be entirely arbitrary and capricious. I did the same for some of the other notables on this page and got matches of writing style to "Ursula K. Le Guin", "Dan Brown", "Stephen King", "Kurt Vonnegut" and "James Joyce." Now, for the fun: match up: Silverchemist, Mark Sublette, BilCat, AussieLegend and Binksternet to their writing styles! FWiW, the matches are scrambled, guess your style. Bzuk (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC).

Music Consultants Incorporated

rated redirects here without explanation. The name change should be explained in the article text. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have marked the other page for quick deletion. Hopefully this will happen soon Chrisfromcanberra (talk)

DYK medal

Thank you for your nice words of appreciation! Do you think you might look at "my regular" Bach cantata in the Special occasion section? The editor who always did that is on vacation. Suggestion: to list that section also on the queue page under "Current number of hooks on the suggestions page", to make visible that hooks are waiting there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I reviewed your DYK entry, and I judged it ready for the Main page. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! btw one sentence later - still the same topic - there is also a ref in English. I wonder if that is too hard to find in a pdf? - I'm encouraged to start the next one now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Laguna & Queen Mary pictures

While I agree on the pic of Laguna, that was not what I had intended to upload but the queen pic is a more balanced photo, as most know her with the Goose hanger in the background. It is simple to remove the excess sky . . . WPPilot 05:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs)

why did you remove Dan Haerle from the list of jazz pianists??

List_of_jazz_pianists like what's the rationale? My rationale for adding him is that he's been recorded on nearly every one of Aebersold's 107 book/tape/cd recordings. Jazz musicians use his playing to learn from it. He also publishes books on jazz piano. -- Scriber (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a list of all jazz pianists, it's a list of jazz pianists who have Wikipedia articles written about them. Write one for Haerle and he will be eligible for the list. Read Wikipedia:Notability (music) to see how you can establish Haerle's notability, then click on Dan Haerle (the red link) to begin creating the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Airship#Undeveloped_Ideas

Please join the discussion at Talk:Airship#Undeveloped_Ideas. I'd like to revise this section up to spec, but could use some feedback before I do. Fixblor (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed Quillen

Please review Talk:Kit_Carson#Ed_Quillen. The problem is that I've met the man. He's OK, but really just another guy. Fred Talk 21:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Zone System

Hello. In March you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [4]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 19:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Good to know! Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

your edit on the covert racism article

"The practice we’ve dubbed “racebending” on this site refers to situations where A) A movie studio/publisher, etc. has changed the ethnicity of a character B) with a resultant discriminatory impact on an underrepresented cultural community and actors from that community (reinforcement of glass ceilings, loss of opportunity, etc.)"

note that this is the excepted definition of racebending, minus examples. i would like to know why you thought it would be a good idea to reduce that to one sentence that doesn't even cover the scope of what racebending truly is. that decision reeks of, not only lack of life experience(ever seen the difference between original stories and their movie adaptations?), but lack of research as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvercell2 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiding under a mattress all my life, avoiding "life experience", I got into the habit of checking for reliable sources. Where is the authoritative definition for racebending that will cover your complaint? Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

United States Army Air Forces: Uniform Section

I began editing this article because as it stood there was a great deal of in correct information in it.

That said, I did not intend to delete the reference to Janet R. Daly-Benarek's The Enlisted Experience: A Conversation With the Chief Master Sergeants of the Air Force, since I did not alter the bit it was supporting. It was my mistake unintentionally deleting it and it should be put back in. My apologies!

However the references to U.S. Army Air Force fabric shade numbers were incorrectly stated in the original article: "Members of the USAAF wore a wool serge service uniform very similar to that of other U.S. Army forces with few modifications. Officers wore a "No. 1" service uniform in "shade No. 51 (dark-shade)" olive drab, nicknamed "greens", while enlisted personnel wore "Class A" service dress of "shade No. 54 (light-shade)" OD. In garrison most officers, although authorized wear of the lighter shade trousers, wore khaki chino cotton or wool trousers that appeared pinkish in hue in contrast with the dark No. 51 shade, leading to the nickname "pinks and greens" for the combination.

Correction: "No. 1 dress" is a British Army term. The term "Class A" is a post WWII U.S. Army term. Enlisted personnel did not wear "shade No. 54 (light-shade)" OD. There is no such thing as Olive Drab shade 54. Drab shade 54 is the pinkish shade being refered to. Olive drab "light shade" was OD shade 33 which was the color of uniforms issued to enlisted men and used by officers except for dress purposes. The last sentence doesn't make sence, officers usually wore the drab shade 54 trousers for dress and olive drab light or dark shade trousers at other times. American khaki cotton trousers were part of the summer service uniform, for the most part not used at all in Europe. These cotton trousers did not form part of the "pinks and greens" uniform, the combination was winter weight wool olive drab shade 51 service coat and drab shade 54 service trousers.

Therefore, the reference Bowman, USAAF Handbook 1939-1945, pp. 166-167. was not there supporting correct information as stated in the article.

I could go on through the article as it was before, pointing out other errors but I think it is sufficently corrected now. I left untouched parts that were correct already.

Sorry for the miscommunication.

Patrickodriscoll (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. In my last edit I deleted the phrase the WAAC later became the WAC "which did not result in a uniform change", because it did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickodriscoll (talk • contribs) 02:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I just renominated George Washing for GA Status per the second review, most of the suggestions made were done though not checked off. I was wondering if you could have a look at it since the previous reviewer Nikkimaria is away on vacation. Thanks. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 08:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

You are currently editing against the consensus. Please stop. Please review BOLD, revert, discuss. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And you crossed 3rr.Cptnono (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The article, Art student scam, is not going to get better until editors determine that building the article from reliable sources is better than fossilizing it in the limited state I found it in. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for violation of the three-revert rule on Art student scam. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 21:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

About ten days ago user mbz1, noon, and huey45 ganged up to revert my edits and mbz1 along with huey45 got me blocked for 24 hours for what they called vandalism and edit warring whereas I was just trying to improve the wikipedia article. Apparently mbz1 has already been blocked 7-9 times. It is clear huey45 was acting in "bad faith" when he stated that the art students weren't even Israeli and repeated the statement again. It's very likely that huey45 isn't the only user acting in "bad faith" with regards to editing this article.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTTHEM. The behaviour of others does not excuse your own behaviour. There are ways to resolve content disputes (i.e. dispute resolution) and edit warring is not one of them. Fences&Windows 11:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet, I've unblocked Mbz1 as they have indicated they will not edit war any more. I am willing to unblock you as well under the same undertaking. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer... but I was unblocked after sitting out 22:04 of 24 hours, and I did not bother to come back and edit until 24:17 hours had passed. Thank you, Tariqabjotu. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Bill Porter - 1977 - Des Moines.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bill Porter - 1977 - Des Moines.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 21:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Bose and High End

UKphoenix found on source that has the exact wording [5]. And frankly, when I look at the High-end audio atricle, as badly written as it is, it allows for high price and aesthetics, in addition to audio fidelity. I think a fair next step is to articulate what those sources are talking about which is the radios, ipod speakers etc. so it's accurate. Mattnad (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A piece of unwanted advise

Never report somebody for edit warring you yourself involved in. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Think like the classic Japanese swordsmen who were encouraged, when dueling, to get at least a mutual kill, called ai uchi (equal strike). There's also the Russian/Polish concept of taran in aviation, a risky move that has a high mortality for the attacker. I was perfectly willing to have my contributions examined when I reported you. I note your new 1RR restriction, and must conclude that your actions were judged the worse. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@RomaC:

Re: 50 DYKs

I lost a lot of my counters when I tried deleting everything off of them, I know since some of my GAs are missing and/or repeated, but I've considered Carlton Hill (Erie Railroad station) was the #50. What count did you come out to?Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 14:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)