User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet	My articles	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

New Years Message for WikiProject United States

With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Iran articles

I've encountered problems in the past trying to edit Iran-related articles. I'm wondering if you are encountering some the same issues? In the past I've found, in my opinion, a bloc of editors who aggressively remove any text, no matter how well sourced, which throw any kind of bad light on Iran. As a result, I've avoided editing Iran-related articles as I feel it's a waste of time to add sourced information to an article knowing that it will be reverted within minutes. Of course, the information I add isn't necessarily all negative about Iran. Or is it a more complex issue than this? Cla68 (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It is no more complex than that. Binksternet (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's any consolation then, you're not the first one to find out what it's like to try to edit articles about Iran. For some reason, the editing atmosphere around those articles has gone unnoticed by WP's administration. Cla68 (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't the job of administrators to patrol all articles. If you don't report unacceptable behavior on WP:ANI, if you don't bother reporting edit-warring on WP:3RR, if you fail to issue escalating warnings to POV pushers, if you neglect to go to WP:RFPP and ask for article protection when there's a content dispute, then administrators will be busy elsewhere. Those reporting venues I mentioned are where many admins first notice that there's a problem that needs attention. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I will keep in mind the options you list. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

About that 'unknown person'

Greetings! Regarding this, I've just started a discussion on the Village Pump about this issue -- he seems to have uploaded a picture of himself on numerous articles, and I'd like some consensus as to whether or not this is acceptable (I actually didn't see anything specifically addressing this in policy). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Policy will have to catch up to practice which is to remove personal photos. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Smaart

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For showing true dedication in expanding Smaart from a mediocre stub to this all in the middle of an AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you never got a review for it at T:TDYK, but I thought you deserved recognition. I've approved it and moved to the prep area and it'll go into the queue when I've got a complete set of hooks to move. It'll be on the Main Page in about 32 hours if my maths is correct. Anyway, good effort. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and especially for the rescue star! Cheers – Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. It's in queue 6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I semi-protected your userpage

...due to vandalism I've seen on it coming from new/unregistered accounts. Any registered user can still edit it. I assumed you may want this protection (my view is all user pages should be semi-protected by default), but if not, let me know and I can unprotect it. I can also protect your talk page similarly. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't swamped by the vandalism, but I like having your mosquito net. Heh heh... Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Smaart

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd proposed change in 1953 Iran coup article lead

Hi, I'm doing another poll of editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of revising a phrase in the article lead. It's a repeat but I didn't explain it well in the first poll.

• changing this phrase (which talks about an element in the motivation for US involvement in the coup):
  • from ... resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat.
  • to: the ... resolute prevention of Iran falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire".[Gasiorowski, Mosaddeq, p.274]

The reason for the change is discussed here and is, briefly, that the sentence as is doesn't match the rest of the article, (and doesn't match most of the books that deal with US motivation in the coup).
The US motivation section gives only one author (Abrahamian) who thinks the US leadership wasn't seriously worried about the possibility that Iran might become a communist country, while listing several who thought cold war motivation of the US was important.
An even more thorough examination of the sources dealing with issue is here.

Hope you have time to give it a look see, --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Response at Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Calafia

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I threw my name in the hat on November 19. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

B-24

Hi, I see you reverted my B-24 edit. I was wondering what your opinion on that part is. My correction was: There are two flying B-24's in the world, a B-24J named Witchcraft of the Collings Foundation in Stow, Massachusetts. The other, "Ole 927" was one of the very early Liberators ordered by the British before the beginning of Lend-Lease. She started out as a B-24A but was converted to a transport configuration, re-designated LB-30 and never delivered to the RAF. The CAF is in the process of reconverting her from an LB-30, back to B-24A configuration. The old text is taken straight from the Collings Foundation's website and in my opinion can hardly be called a neutral text. It favors their aircraft which they market as 'the only flying B-24' because they sell rides on it. However, you can't ignore the fact that the CAF also has a B-24 that is flying. It was modified as a cargo aircraft and redesignated LB-30, but the CAF has been converting it back to B-24A status. All the cargo stuff is out and the gun positions were put back in. True, it is missing the bomb doors, but these are planned to be put back in at a later date. I live in Europe and have nothing to do with either Collings or CAF, But I feel Wiki should provide a neutral statement in this matter. I feel my revision provided a better and more neutral view of the matter. Maybe the first line should be further modified to 'There are two flying Liberators in the world,' to make it completely neutral? I look forward to hearing yours :) PS: it is refered to as a B-24A on the Wiki B-24's survivors page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fouga (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There were a couple of problems with your change, the biggest being that you removed a cite, non-neutral as it may be. Rather, you ought to have added a cite from CAF to balance the picture. Beyond that, your change was poorly written.

Going forward, the article should have cites for both aircraft, and should be rewritten again to match them. This magazine article from 2007 has good info about Ol' 927. Your suggestion of having "two Liberators" is a fine one. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change 2.1 in 1953 Iran coup article lead

Aliwiki (here) and Kurdo (here) have both made complaints about the proposed changes that I think have merit, so I'm revising the change so that Iran falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire"[7] refers to the US administration point of view and not a statement of fact.
The to-be-revised text and revised text are in italics. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Current wording

• "Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott.[Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran] while using Iranian agents to undermine his government.[Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, p.3 (In October 1952 Mosaddeq "orders the British embassy shut" after learning of British plotting to overthrow him.)] With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup.[Kinzer, Stephen. All the Shah's Men. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008, p. 3]"

• "The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth[Kinzer, Stephen, Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (Henry Holt and Company 2006). p. 200–201] as well as the resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat."

Proposed change

• "Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott.[Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran] while using Iranian agents to undermine his government.[Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, p.3 (In October 1952 Mosaddeq "orders the British embassy shut" after learning of British plotting to overthrow him.)] By 1953 both Britain and the United States had more conservative governments and the new US Eisenhower administration reversed its predessor's opposition to a coup, fearing that Iran was in danger of falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire".[Little, Douglas. American Orientalism: the United States and the Middle East since 1945, I.B.Tauris, 2003, p. 216. ISBN 1860648894]"

• "The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth[Kinzer, Stephen, Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (Henry Holt and Company 2006). p. 200–201] as well as the prevention of possibility that Iran might fall under the influence of the Communist Soviet Union.[Gasiorowski, Mosaddeq, p.274]" --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the change is the same as the original one and is discussed here

Hope you have time to give it a look see, --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will look it over and reply at the article's talk page, as usual. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Barstow, California

You and I both reverted the same non-notable addition to Barstow, California and your edit notes it as a good faith edit. I don't think so. The same IP added the same information to both Lakeville, Minnesota and to Waconia, Minnesota - so either this guy is writing his book on the move, or its simple vandalism !  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So WP:COI, eh? Not good faith. I don't think this guy will go away. Perhaps it's time to bump up a level on him. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bloody Saturday (photograph)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I see this picked up 24,400 hits while on the Main Page yesterday. Well done! —Bruce1ee^talk 06:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing quite like having a burned, crying baby photo on the Main Page! :/

Thank you for your good wishes. Binksternet (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There were 6700 views of Battle of Shanghai, 1600 views of Life (magazine), 10,800 views of the cropped photo File:Shanghai_crying_baby_detail_100px.jpg and 7700 views of the normal size photo File:BattleOfShanghaiBaby_retouched.jpg. What a haul! Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What a haul indeed. Unfortunately only the hits for the DYK article counts for WP:DYKSTATS :( —Bruce1ee^talk 07:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, unfortunately. Say, I wonder if there is a way to have people click on a cropped 100px image thumbnail at the top of DYK and be taken to the larger version of the image, or be taken to the related article? I think 10,800 people got irritated or confused when they clicked on the photo detail. Binksternet (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Injured Chinese baby crying after Japanese bomb attack in Shanghai, August 28, 1937

Injured Chinese baby crying after Japanese bomb attack in Shanghai, August 28, 1937

This can be done using the "link" parameter. Clicking on the first thumbnail takes you to the full version of the image; clicking on the second thumbnail takes you to the corresponding article. It's an intriguing idea, but I don't know how the DYK community would take to it. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic! I will ask the "DYK community" whether they prefer one or the other, or neither. I just cannot see the reader benefiting from a click-through which takes him to the tiny cropped version. Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with clicking through to the full image, but they may object to clicking through to the DYK article, as this could be seen as fishing for extra hits. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see how that could be a concern, though it is not what drives me. I just want the reader to get something useful out of the click. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

expanding Chancellorsville

Just dropping by to say that is great work you did to expand Battle of Chancellorsville. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. (I don't think you had enough time to read the entire article before sending this. :-)) Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't eh? Heh heh... I could see very quickly the tenor of the work. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Spy family...

Hi I just wanted to know what is happening...?

The reason I am trying to add a couple of paragraphes in the Attack on Pearl Harbour article is because I have an assignment due on the 31st of January.

The assignment is to add 2-3 paragraphes on a piece of AMerican History... If you are not going to accept my request to add please let me know as soon as possible so I can find another thing to work on.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmz10 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Your addition was not very well written, and the article you chose is one of Wikipedia's top level articles, a WP:Featured article. Poorly written text will not survive very long in a featured article! You will do better to add three paragraphs to an article that is not as well developed. How about choosing the Kuehn Family article? Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please give me an article that proves that the information the Kuehns were send were not too useful. I searched for Gordon Prange but could not find nothing.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmz10 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are two Gordon Prange books, with references to Kuehn:

• Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History
• At dawn we slept: the untold story of Pearl Harbor

Go get 'em! Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Renault FT

Are you sure "FT" isn't just an M-number? There should at least be another article covering just the FT-17 variant. Marcus Qwertyus 19:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not absolutely sure of anything, but I thought the FT designation referred to the basic tank model, allowing for variation in weaponry and utility, and mainly differentiated by year: model 1917 and model 1918 being called FT 17 and FT 18.

The Renault FT article did not appear to me to be only about the 1917 model—it appeared to be about all variants. Binksternet (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

To preserve the edit history it may be best to keep the article at its previous name and create Renault FT anew. In related news, at some point I'd like to remove the Mark II, III, IV etc. derivatives from the Mark I page. Marcus Qwertyus 02:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

May I nominate you for the honors? I'm not as sure-footed on these topics as I'd like to be. Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Crist

Hello, I am currently working on an edit in the Vaughn Walker article. In looking through the Charlie Crist article, I found that you had a very similar experience when making that edit with a misunderstanding of the WP:WELLKNOWN policy. I am wondering if you could take me through all the steps you used to finally reach consensus and clarify that policy. I feel that the situations are exactly analogous. My sincere thanks. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep at it, don't let up on the talk page. Settle for a partial or compromise solution if one is offered. Start an RfC: {{rfctag|bio|pol}}. The Walker case is weaker than the Crist one in that Walker is not a state governor (not as WP:WELLKNOWN) and there was no film made about his orientation. The case's strengths are that Walker has not denied being gay, and he has been called upon to judge cases involving homosexuality, and political observers have in turn judged his handling of those cases with his sexuality as a major element. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken Burns effect

Hello,
The link on zooming redirect to zoom but it's a disambiguation page. I suggest you place a pipe to Focal length. Also Hitchcock zoom redirect to Dolly zoom. Best. 204.174.87.29 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, zooming in general is a complete mess. Somebody needs to take the various topics in hand. Not me. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I placed a call at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. 204.174.87.29 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition

Starting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:

1. Portal:United States
2. the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard
3. the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
4. and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.

You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Headphones: Impedance

Hello. I see that today, you removed most of the text that I inserted yesterday in the above section. Here's what the section looked like this morning:

"The electrical impedance of a pair of headphones is a figure of merit supplied by the headphone manufacturer, and has units of ohm. Modern headphones which are designed for high fidelity audio monitoring and which have "dynamic" speakers (the majority of headphones are of this type; see section below) have impedance values ranging from 25 ohm to 600 ohm.[citation needed] The impedance of each speaker in a pair of stereo headphones is equal to the stated impedance of the headphones, since each speaker is driven by its own audio source (the left or right channel of the audio amplifier).

"Headphones that have an impedance of around 32 ohm are well suited for use with a portable audio amplifier that's powered by a low voltage battery set (such as the audio amp in a CD player or an iPod; for example, one that's powered by a 3 VDC battery set, such as 2 AA batteries). This is because the theoretical maximum peak to peak audio output voltage that an audio amp powered by a 3 VDC battery set can supply (on either its left channel or its right channel) is 3 V peak to peak. It would be able to supply this voltage only if it were an ideal Class B audio amp. A typical real-world audio amp powered by a 3 VDC battery set can supply about 1.5 V peak to peak. A voltage of 1.50 V peak to peak is equal to 530 mV rms (root mean square).[citation needed]

"If one of the speakers in a pair of headphones with an impedance of 32 ohm is supplied a voltage of 530 mV rms, the power delivered to that speaker is 8.77 mW (because power equals rms voltage squared divided by impedance); and the total power delivered to the headphones is twice that value, 17.6 mW. But if the headphone impedance is 250 ohm, the total power delivered to the headphones is only 2.25 mW.

"At least one manufacturer offers the same headphone model in a choice of 3 impedances: Beyerdynamic offers the DT 990 headphone with impedance values of 32 ohm, 250 ohm, or 600 ohm. Beyerdynamic says that the 600 ohm version provides better audio fidelity, because in that version, the mass of the moving element of each speaker is less than in either the 250 ohm or 32 ohm versions. [citation needed]"

Here's what it looks like now:

"The electrical impedance of a pair of headphones depends on the model, and is in the range 25 ohms to 600 ohms.[citation needed] High impedance headphones of about 600 ohms have been popular among tube amplifier aficionados, and in classroom or studio situations requiring many headphones connected in parallel to the same source. Low impedance headphones yield a louder sound from a standard headphone jack, and use less power—an important consideration for portable electronics.[4]"

Because you removed the text that describes the voltage limitation of a portable audio amplifier, I believe that you removed the key point that explains why a low-impedance headphone is better suited for use with a portable audio amplifier than a high-impedance headphone. And it's not that true that a low impedance headphone necessarily draws less power than a high impedance headphone-- the efficiency of a headphone (sound energy produced divided by electrical energy input) is not directly related to the impedance of the headphone. I see that you've contributed to many articles on Wikipedia; I've only contributed to a few. But I do believe that you deleted important information from this section; and there is now a factual error in the text: "low-impedance headphones draw less power than high-impedance headphones". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbennett555 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I pulled out your text because it was not supported by references; see WP:CITE for advice on how to add text to Wikipedia articles with a much higher chance of it not being deleted. Regarding the error about drawing less power, I will now go correct that bit. Low-impedance headphones require less power than high-impedance ones to achieve the same SPL. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

About 2 weeks ago, I did some "research" using the internet (including Wikipedia) because I didn't understand why the vast majority of headphones intended for mobile use have a relatively low impedance-- usually around 32 ohm. I found many websites that make the claim that low impedance headphones are "more efficient" (ie, the ratio of sound energy produced to electrical power input is better with a low impedance headphone); but I didn't see any websites that say that the reason is simply that the mobile audio amplifier can't produce much voltage.

After thinking about the issue and making some measurements using equipment that I have at home, I'm convinced that the main reason that mobile-use headphones have an impedance of around 32 ohm is the voltage limitation of the mobile audio amp. This is why I included that statement in the text that I posted this weekend, which you deleted. (That statement was partly based on measurements I made at home, but I also believe that it's fairly obvious to a person with some experience with basic electronics; and I included explanatory text.)

Regarding the question, "Are low impedance headphones more efficient than high impedance headphones?", I've tried to find references that either support this claim or refute it; and I can't. But I don't think that that issue is the important reason that mobile-use headphones have an impedance around 32 ohm. What reference(s) do you have that support this claim?

FYI, I've looked at a number of manufacturer headphone data sheets (eg, Sennheiser and Beyerdynamic) to see whether the efficiency rating of certain headphones, which are available in different choices of impedance, differs with the impedance of the headphone. Every data sheet I've looked at has the same efficiency rating (eg, 96 dB SPL audio output measured with an electrical input power of 1 mW), whether the headphone is ordered with an impedance of 32 ohm, 250 ohm, or 600 ohm. (For example, the Beyerdynamic DT 990; and the Beyerdynamic T5 and T50P.)

Even if turns out to be true that low impedance headphones are more efficient, I'm quite sure that there is little difference in efficiency between headphones of different impedances. I think that clearly, the important reason that mobile-use headphones have an impedance of around 32 ohm is simply due to the limited audio voltage that a mobile audio amp can produce; and you removed that statement, and the supporting explanation, from the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbennett555 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:NOR where it says that there is no original research allowed on Wikipedia. That means you cannot measure impedance and voltage at home and report your findings. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What about the other question I asked you (2 times): What reference(s) do you have for the statement, "Low impedance headphones are more efficient than high impedance headphones."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbennett555 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not answer the other questions—twice—because I figured you would look at the cited source: "Headphones Basics - Choosing the Right Pair". That article says "high impedance sets require a higher driving signal to produce the same level of sound output in comparison to low impedance headsets. This means that low impedance headphones will sound louder when plugged in devices with low output voltages such as portable CD players, etc. ... Worth keeping in mind here that the lower the impedance, the more efficient headphones are in converting the incoming electrical energy into sound."

Does that take care of your concern? Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not seeing that you had included the reference listed above. (The reference was in the article; I looked for it in the above text.)

I looked at the website "Headphone Basics-- Choosing The Right Pair"; and yes, on that website, it says: "the lower the impedance, the more efficient headphones are in converting the incoming electrical energy into sound." But I still haven't found any (real) source that supports that claim. I say real source, because on that website, there is no reference listed for the statement.

So is this the way Wikipedia is supposed to work: If a person can find some un-referenced text that supports a particular claim on any website, he can put the text in a Wikipedia article, and "reference" the text with the address of the website that it was copied from? That's essentially a circular argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbennett555 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not pretending the webpage is a very highly regarded source, I am just acknowledging that it exists as a source. It would be better to have a known expert be the source. Perhaps Glen Ballou's book Handbook for Sound Engineers has something. The main reason I used the bit from practical-home-theater-guide.com is that the writer is right about that part. However, the article has internal conflicts: for instance, it describes low headphone impedances as being in the range 75 to 150, then it says that headphones for portable devices should not have impedances higher than 64. In my experience with Wikipedia, it is okay to take the truthful bits from a page which otherwise has flaws. The trump card would be a more expert source, if you can find one. Binksternet 17:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. There's some helpful info there. But I'm puzzled about something: you say that the statement on the webpage that says low impedance headphones are more efficient is correct. But why do you believe that? That's exactly the issue that I've brought up here-- I can't find any evidence to support that statement, and that website doesn't cite a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbennett555 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not say anything about efficiency, though the website source does. I just know that lower impedance means that the headphones draw more power because they are closer to being a short circuit. I know that lower impedance headphones will get louder than high impedance ones if they are both supplied a given voltage. Efficiency is another matter, one related to sensitivity, and a topic I did not try to introduce into the "Impedance" section of the Headphones article.

This source from Chu Moy of Headwize says that dynamic headphones are generally more efficient than isodynamic or electrostatic. It says efficiency is measured by sensitivity, that dynamic headphones have a 90 dB and higher sensitivity, and that portable electronics headphones ought to have 100 dB and higher sensitivity. One example line is Sony MDR-V6 and its cousins, all having 106 dB or higher sensitivity. Sensitivity will be affected by such physical and mechanical traits as open-back or closed-shell type, with open types being less sensitive; sensitivity is not equivalent to impedance. The headphones article currently does not have a "Sensitivity" paragraph but it could probably use one under "Electrical characteristics". Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bruce Jackson (audio engineer)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

1RR

Hi, I thought you are still on a revert parole - has it expired? Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm keeping close track of the number of my reverts. At the Vaughn Walker article, I have reverted exactly once—not once per day—just once. Your own reversion was among the most unthinking I've seen there, changing good refs to a disputed one. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well sometimes my heart overrules my head - you know me by now - I find this type of sexual rumor awful - i8ts not worthy of addition and never will be ever. I reverted my edits completely - Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Henri Coanda defamation

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Henri Coanda defamation and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Howard Hughes

Excuse me, but you reverted an edit I made to the Howard Hughes article, claiming it was "vandalism". Since when is a reference in The Simpsons to Hughes "incorrect information"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matariel (talk • contribs) 22:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Matariel (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh. I see that you added some uncited trivia from the Simpsons, the connection to Howard Hughes not noted by a reliable source. Forgive me for deleting your addition of trivia; I thought it was vandalism when I saw this change which introduced the "Spruce Moose". I apologize for any impression I gave you about you being a vandal. The text, though, about the Simpsons, is not worthy of the article until you find a published, verifiable and reliable source which discusses it. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I linked to the wikipedia page of the episode in question, which more fully explains the Hughes references, and cites external sources for the information. I wasn't aware the double referencing was required, since in the same section a Beverly Hillbillies reference is quoted, but the citation leads to a placeholder webpage. Matariel (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems obvious to you and me, but the connection between Hughes and Burns must be noticed by reliable sources, perhaps a TV critic in a newspaper. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to include this. There is no credible question that the Simpson's portrayed a rich recluse building a "Spruce Moose". The link from there to Hughes is self-evident, far from the "extraordinary claims" that really need legwork. Much as I dislike these "in pop culture" lists (Notability of Hughes to his tribute doesn't imply commutative notability of the tribute to Hughes), the Simpsons are fairly major, it's a major theme for a whole episode and so I think this one is, to coin a phrase, "big enough to fly". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What so few people realise, and that has been shamefully hidden from the public record, is Hughes' 1909 transatlantic jet flight. He told Elvis about this, out in the Nevada desert one night, but there has since been a conspiracy by the Romanian-Canadian conspiracy to hush it up.

LOL!

Regarding the "Spruce Moose" and Burns acting neurotic in the same manner as later Hughes, I feel that if the pop culture bit is notable then there will be a critic that has noticed it and commented. That's a pretty low bar to entry, and I don't think it too much to ask. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahem...

Hi, was this [1] deliberate? I don't think you should use Twinkle-rollback on that. It looked like a good-faith (albeit misguided) request. Of course, somebody ought to explain to the editor why that is not a matter for Arbcom, but I don't think the arbs like to have such requests summarily removed like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I sure blew that call. I looked at the edit for a very brief moment and thought the user was vandalizing the page. I will undo my mistaken edits. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Project

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for being one of the people that helped to raise the quality of the Manhattan Project article.

This user helped promote Manhattan Project to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers to all. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry!

I didn't mean to add unsourced content to Lava Lamp! I didn't know! I'm so sorry! Aerosprite the Legendary Leave me a message! 13:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Escort Fighter

Read that section carefully and you will see that what i wrote needs no citation.

Gaijin-san

After my last cmt here, I had an attack of conscience. I've tried to be patient, & tried not to say, "You're being a closed-minded idiot", but I'm not sure how close I am to the line, & I'd prefer not to cross it over something so dumb. Would you have a look? Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't judge whether your patience is too thin now or is just right for the situation. I do not like the fact that the guy is not quoting any experts, and I think your comments about his intractability have been spot on. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't do well with stubborn like this. ;p I'd already decided to step back if there was no movement after my last comment, even take the page off watchlist for a bit (so I'm not tempted ;p). I just found myself wanting to say, "Stop being a moron", which didn't seem like a good idea. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

nested not used anymore

Hi. Concerning this edit of yours I would like only to inform you that |nested= isn't used anymore. Banners are automatically nested inside WikiProjectBannerShell. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I merely copied that stuff from a related article. I haven't been keeping track of those parameters. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Piezoelectric Audio Amplifier

Thanks for the response concerning the references and the chances in the article “piezoelectric audio amplifier”
The word Piezoceramic and piezo are mostly also used for piezoelectric.

The references that were used in the article are not promotional material and is also not intended to advertise for a product. Because of the specific scientific item, the core information off this item is founded in datasheets and application notes. Therefore the page numbers were mentioned. Even in the application note PAA-StepUpBTL-01 there is a full description of the schematics, everybody can make this, so this is not an advertising for a product. Please consider to add these sources in the reference. They were the result of a study for driving piezo audio loudspeakers what are full range loudspeakers and is a new technology.
Text:

• Maxim inc, datasheet MAX9788, Class G ceramic speaker driver,p.7-p.9
• Linear technology, datasheet LT3469, Piezo microactuator driver with boost regulator, p.5-p.6
• National semiconductor, datasheet LM4960, Piezoelectric speaker driver, p.8-p.11
• Texas Instruments, datasheet TPA2100P1, Mono class-D Audio Amplifier for Piezo/Ceramic speakers,p.9 – p.18
• Sonitron, Application note PAA-StepUpBTL-01, Piezoceramic Audio Amplifiers: DC-DC Stepupconverter – Bridge Tied Load, p.2-p.3

Awaiting your reply

Sonitron Support (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be based mostly on secondary sources, and those manufacturers notes are primary sources. See WP:SECONDARY for the guideline. The way you inserted those links as references here was, to my eye, a way to get the manufacturer you represent into the article. Promoting Sonitron is not something you are allowed to do, per WP:ADV.

You are still in violation of username policy. You can do two things: go to WP:CHU and change your username, or abandon this one and simply begin a new one representing only yourself as a person. The third option of doing nothing will soon find your username blocked. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Username will be changed. I do believe that the mentioned references give good information about this common used new technology. There is no intention of making a kind of promoting for any company otherwise it would not be written so carefully.Sonitron Support (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC at 1953 Iranian coup d'état

Lots of response, no consensus. Responses seem to have died down. What do you do next in such a situation? --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I would not say that there is no consensus. Some of the arguments are weak as hell, and should count little or not at all. At WP:ANI, ask for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Since when are the WP:RFC requests "closed" by anyone? You seem to have mistaken WP:RFC with WP:RFD. RFC requests are automatically ended by the RfC bot after thirty days of discussion. Also, requesting the same "proposals" over and over in different venues, hoping for a different result, is considered a form of forum-shopping. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's out of line. I have made no mistake between RFC and RFD. An uninvolved admin closing an RfC ties a neat bow on the result, if one can be determined other than "no consensus". Since when is an article talk page RfC forum shopping? Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not how RFCs work. No RFC request has ever been "closed" by an "uninvolved admin". RFC is neither a vote , nor a request for move/deletion that would need closing. RFC requests are just a "posting on the wall" or invitation for input from the broader community, that stay posted for 30 days. Also, an admin's input in a content dispute has no more value than other editors, as an admin cannot make editorial judgments or take sides in content disputes. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the procedural advice. That bit about forum shopping sounds like you're worried more about the outcome than about procedure. Binksternet (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I am just letting you guys know what the rules and procedure are, on the record, so that you'd not be able to plead "I didn't know" in the future, as you have done so many times in the past, when you've broken the rules and ignored procedure. So I'm not here to argue with you, and this is my last comment for now. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What "so many times in the past"? Poisoning the well. Thanks for a last comment, an untruthful jab. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet: I'll ask an uninvolved admin to close the RfC and see what happens. If they tell me "RFC requests are automatically ended by the RfC bot after thirty days of discussion," then ... I'll wait.

Kurdo: What do you mean I (or Binksternet) have been "requesting the same "proposals" over and over in different venues, hoping for a different result, is considered a form of forum-shopping"? Yes we've (Binksternet not so long) been arguing about this for years, but this is the first RfC I've made for the 1953 Coup article.

And as for your "just letting you guys know what the rules and procedure are, on the record", what reason would Binksternet or I or any of the other people you been picking fights with have for considering you some impartial source of accurate information???? You're not an admin, you're not uninvolved, you're an aggressive editor who's been fighting for years to keep important information from reliable sources out of the coup article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Machito

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you read my references of tango?

Did you read it??? If you wanna, I can translate it to you. "My commentareyas" are supported in realiable references. Do you know anything about tango?? I didn't invent anything, I olnly wrote some infromation that wasn't written. Am I a bad person or an objective person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipo yocasta (talk • contribs) 15:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If you remove the UNESCO conclusion that Uruguay and Argentina both originated the tango, then you are not helping to build the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

OK! I agree with you in it. I won't change the "UNESCO TITLE"...but if you read that I wrote, you own will see where the Tnago borned. I don't want to discuss. If you read the references given by me, you'll see... OH! and if you show me, only ONE realiable reference of Tango in uruguay at the late 19th century, I will accept the co-originator Uruguay. But till this moment, please don't forbid my contributions in Wikipedia. --Edipo yocasta (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The guideline about WP:Neutral point of view tells us that when we have conflicting references, we deliver the information to the reader in a manner that gives each source the proper level of weight, with attribution. The UNESCO source is top level. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

General sanctions on abortion articles

Just letting you know, in case you didn't already, that abortion-related articles are now subject to general sanctions, including but not limited to 1RR. Going by what's already occurred (two editors blocked at Lila Rose and the sanctions were imposed what, a day ago?), it looks like there's going to be a lot of admin involvement as well as a lot of attempts to game the system. Be careful! I like editing with you, and even a short block would be a shame. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I certainly will not violate 1RR. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

Dont- remove my changes without any explanation and moreover saying "i don-t understand in a good way the English!!! First, you should study this language. You are always mentioning UNESCO UNESCO........ UnESCO only aprove the Tango like "World heritage", an that-s all. I am writting about the beginnings of Tango. If you remove again without understand everything I wrote, I will denounce you to the good Wikipedians. --Edipo yocasta (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Logo stack, ProtectMarriage vs Courage Campaign.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Logo stack, ProtectMarriage vs Courage Campaign.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the file is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 20:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am confident we can sort this appropriately with out deletion. I placed a "hang on" tag and added a defense on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

CFD follow-up

You recently participated in this discussion. There is now a follow-up discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

OK! master, then... can you show me any reference of "uruguayan tango" before 1905??? If you do that, I will believe the "shared" origin, but till you show me something, I won't believe this big lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipo yocasta (talk • contribs) 22:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

UNESCO says it is a shared origin, that tango came from Argentina and Uruguay. Wikipedia does not try to show the absolute truth, it shows instead the published truth. UNESCO tops the list of publications about tango, because it is a global judge of cultural worth, made up of neutral authorities on the subject. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

OK! then you don't care the absolute truth... Now I am understandidng the few realiability of Wikipedia... I think, if you not even show ealiable texts which could demonstrate the "absolute truth", you are lying to people.

Moreover: Where did you read UNESCO sayed "The Tango came from Argentina and Uruguay"??... UNESCO onyl sayed: "Tango is heritage of Argentina and Uruguay", but It has never denied that the begginings of Tango developed only in Buenos Aires. Did I tell my thought in a good way??? Do you understand me??? --Edipo yocasta (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedian not seeking the real truth = bad Wikipedian --Edipo yocasta (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Truth

Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pacifica (statue)

Orlady (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: CPC

Thanks. I'd already reverted once, and couldn't again. What do you think ought to be done about these drive-by removals of content for obviously biased reasons? Since the sources aren't cited in the lead, one can't really revert as vandalism, and it would be obnoxious to put all the citations in the lead since we have a section. Should we choose a few and add them to the lead? Put a hidden note by the sentences that keep getting removed, advising the drive-bys to actually read the article? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The most recent drive by was IP anon. If that continues we can protect the article. Binksternet (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought about it (other users that have done the same have also been IPs), but it's probably a little too sporadic to get it semiprotected. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not so unusual for bitterly fought articles to have sourcing in the lead section. Named refs, repeated up top and in the middle. Binksternet (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oy. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing RfC at 1953 Iranian coup d'état

As far as I can tell, my request at WP:ANI was deleted without comment. I may have missed it but I couldn't find it in the archive. Any suggestions? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony / The Revolution

I notice you are administrating the articles on Susan B. Anthony, the SBA and The Revolution, and you reverted the references I gave on all but one, so I hope you do not mind that I speak to you directly. The Women's Archives is currently the only existing archive of original scans of The Revolution on the Internet, and thus I don't understand removing this reference in the article on Susan B. Anthony, which contains an entire section on The Revolution precisely because it was one of the most important things she did in her life's work on Suffrage for women. If you could explain why that reference does not belong in the article, I would appreciate it. If you feel that it should be in the article, but perhaps is better placed elsewhere, I will gladly add the reference where you suggest.

Secondly, I wonder why you would remove the reference I gave in the article on the debate about Susan B. Anthony's position on abortion, when that same section of the article in question quotes Elizabeth Cady Stanton from the exact article I referenced (without the full context of the essay she'd written in The Revolution, hence my provision of the reference). The argument builds its case in part on the idea that Elizabeth Cady Stanton's piece "Infanticide and Prostitution" is an important plank in support of the claim that Susan B. Anthony would have held the same position on abortion that the SBA holds, but without the full context of the original article in The Revolution, it is impossible to understand why this plank in support of the claim is, in fact, debatable. If you think there is a more appropriate place for that reference to go -- as it is undoubtedly germane to the discussion, and no other reference to the complete context of the original copy of The Revolution exists -- where would you suggest that it go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.118.140 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The assumption that whatever Stanton voiced is the same thing that Anthony believed is wrong. The two women were political partners but the differences in their beliefs caused Anthony much grief, as can be seen in her letters. Stanton continually wished for every one of womanhood's ills to be addressed, the sooner the better, but Anthony felt that a more focused effort was the way forward, attacking only the absence of voting rights for women. On that single issue, Anthony knew the most agreement was possible by the most women.

Ann Dexter Gordon, the world's foremost Anthony scholar, said in February 2010 that "The Revolution was a paper of debate—presenting both sides of an issue." Gordon was specifically addressing the tendency of the pro-life position to equate Anthony's beliefs and those of her paper; Gordon is saying that Anthony's very public beliefs and the things she published in her paper were two different things.

At the URL that was recently inserted in the Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute article, we see an opinion article written on a blog site, an article attributed to a writer going by the pseudonym "Woman". This article is thus an unreliable source; we don't know who "Woman" is, whether this person is an expert or not. Per WP:RS, nothing at the blog can be used on Wikipedia, unless at a notional Wikipedia article about the blog itself.

If original scans of The Revolution are linked to Wikipedia articles without accompanying blog opinions and amateur analysis then those links should be allowed to stay. The scans themselves are worthy, of value. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I do happen to know one of the administrators of the site personally, and I emailed her about this today. She asked me if I would convey her response to you:

"The site is not a blog, though we use the Blogger website to publish the scans and digitized documents because it is free and stable. The point of the site is to provide a place where people may view the additions as they are made to the archive, and it would be easier to link to the archive site than to edit the Wikipedia page every time there is a new scan uploaded. The list will get very long after two years' worth of weekly-edition issues, and there are more issues that we already have uploaded which are not listed on the Wiki article.

The only post with any commentary from us is the post on the abortion debate, and while I obviously disagree with the administrator's opinion on the matter and I might have reason to quibble about our analysis being dismissed as "amateur" when one wonders how the administrator supposes the scans got there in the first place if we were not able and willing to access scholarly resources, it is much more important that the archive is made available to the Wikipedia audience than it is to make a point about controversial topics. If the only issue is that analysis, that post can be deleted and we will refrain from any further editorial or analytical remark in the future (that is not our objective anyway, as the administrator may note by observing every other entry in the archive). Please ask the administrator if that would be sufficient. If not, please let them know that if he or she will send an email to [edited to protect from spam: femmenet-at-gmail-dot-com], I will email an update whenever a new scan is uploaded so that the Wikipedia article may be edited as he or she sees fit. I would offer to make the edits myself, but that seems like it would be self-serving, and besides, I am not familiar with the Wikipedia conventions well enough to feel comfortable doing it. - H. Chase"

You're probably suspicious of my edits and I don't want to get into a thing where you're having to scrutinize my changes to make sure I'm not violating standards so I'll let you to decide what to do about this. Thanks. --76.216.104.108 (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a very calm and reasoned response from H. Chase aka Femmenet, speaking for The Women's Archives. In the same spirit, I will lay out the factors at play here, the somewhat conflicting direction we get from Wikipedia:

• A blog is a website with regular entries of commentary or other material. Regular entries of PDF scans of The Revolution seem to qualify The Women's Archives as a blog. So did the now-deleted "Infanticide and Prostitution" commentary and analysis at this URL, giving an opinion of the relationship between Stanton and Anthony's beliefs.
• Per the guideline at WP:External links, blogs are allowed as external links in Wikipedia articles if the writer is a recognized authority in the field; for instance, a blog entry by film critic Roger Ebert describing some aspect of film. To be considered a recognized authority, the blog writer must be so notable that he or she meets the criteria for being the subject of a Wikipedia biography article: Wikipedia:Notability (people)
• What can normally be linked includes "neutral and accurate material that is relevant" but which "cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article". The PDFs have too much detail, too much text to be integrated, so having them as external links is good. The scans are neutral and accurate and relevant.
• Links to avoid include search results pages. Technically, the http://womensarchives.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Revolution URL is a search result showing instances of "The Revolution" in the blog. However...
• ...links "should be kept to a minimum". This means my solution of putting individual PDF links into the newspaper article is not exactly recommended. Some balance must be struck between not having a search results page and having a minimum of links.
• Wikipedia acknowledges that an external link drives traffic to a website. However, the wiki keeps a lid on the spamming of URLs by those who have a conflict of interest: Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest

I see that The Women's Archives has deleted the opinion piece that I had problems with, the one in contradiction to Ann Gordon's conclusion reached after her many years of study. I take that as a gesture of good faith. I will keep an eye on the URL with search results and if there's another uploaded scan of The Revolution (probably volume 1, number 12) I will return the external link to the newspaper article. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

John Lurie

Shame on you Binksternet. Inventing source material to gas up someone you serve is frowned upon. Isn't it?

Lurielurie (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No material was invented. Sources are cited. I serve only myself and Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Better put. Clearly, you are self-serving. And yes, your sources are cited. Unfortunately the passage to which you refer does not exist on page 206 of Bowman, nor does Lurie's or O'brien's name appear in the index.

Your edit stating that Lurie has painted since the 70's and 80's, based on the reference you cited is also thin (at best), a fabrication (at worst). Unless a BLP subject's claims about themselves are acceptable support, I suggest you clean up your mess.

I can only imagine what other havoc you have wreaked on Wikipedia with your deliberate willingness to misinform in the interest of serving yourself.

If the anecdote you cited appears elsewhere in Bowman, please direct me to the proper page, I will stand corrected, and owe you an apology.

If it does not, may I suggest you direct your self-serving energies someplace other than Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurielurie (talk • contribs) 05:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Bowman page 206, just like in the cite: "Downtowner John Lurie was supposed to be in the movie, but turned down a part after O'Brien asked Lurie's black girlfriend to make girlfriend to make them some pancakes."

No need for personal attacks, man. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you have somehow removed my previous correspondence, I say again; I am not sure why you assume I am a man, nor how you can characterize anything I have said as personal attack since you say plainly above that you serve yourself.

Also, and again, your edits which reference Bowman are wildly inaccurate and reflect your bias, as do many of your other edits.

I repeat, you are in big trouble.Lurielurie (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your threat is lost on me. My editing of the article is well referenced. "Wildly inaccurate" does not describe any of my work at John Lurie's bio. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tango, don't remove

Man... before remove a paragraph of "Tango", read the references. Last reference I've given it's not a round table. It'a a reliable reference, then... don't remove anything.

Look this web page, and you'll see that are written and cited Tangos before 1900: http://www.gardelytango.com/genesis-del-tango-de-1860-a-1880.aspx

And this is a relaible page. DON'T remove. --Edipo yocasta (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Air raids on Japan

I've just added the material I've been developing on the air campaign against Japan to the Air raids on Japan article. Thanks a lot for your assistance with this - it's been very helpful both in fixing up errors and keeping me motivated. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Great work! You have made a lousy stub article into a broad and balanced panorama! Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche

Regarding your comment, I have no intention whatever of contesting any edits made by long-standing contributors to the article. The article is very far from perfect; if you change something in the lead I won't dispute it. The article's fractious history is a result of edits by admins, sockpuppets and nobody in between. BillMasen (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Admins, sockpuppets, and me that is. Unless I too am a sock of HK :p BillMasen (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes jump into articles I know nothing about, learning quickly the main issues to represent the uninvolved neutral viewpoint, but in this case I choose not to jump. I have other plans in mind for my time. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your reluctance, but perhaps you can understand my frustration at being told the article has suffered under my 'control', and then asking in vain for concrete suggestions of how to improve it. Of course if you don't want to get involved I can't force you.

regards, BillMasen (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)