![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello Binksternet I see you have made comments and changes to the cue cat record. I have put up for review suggestions for relevant changes to the cue cat record. Would you please join in with the rest of us on the suggested changes? Thank you (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)
Thank each of you, wiki editors and such, for giving me such great pointers and also for the direct emails of encouragement in learning this process. Shabbat Shalom - and since it's Friday I plan to make my additions and updates to the record on Monday. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)
Hi there. Please help me understand why you had removed my edit for vandalism and copyrighted material.
I posted no copyrighted material, just a link. I thought it was a shame that the only external link was available to EU members.
All the same, just trying to help. Cheers!
--Winkinblinkinnod (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.
I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the supportive comment at my talk. I didn't want to spend my Saturday editing Wikipedia, anyway! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Binksternet,
I've only done a few Wikipedia edits. I just saw you remove most of the addition I did for the Oakland Grand Lake theater Politics section.
There is a reason for putting down the full transcript from Rachel Maddow's brief coverage which you deleted.
The Oakland Grand Lake Theater has not been given preferential treatment by the City of Oakland as an important landmark. If anything Oakland Mayor Quan has deliberately introduced anti-small business measures to starve small businesses Oakland and has particularly ignored the owner of the Grand Lake Theater when she was just a councilmember.
The full transcript of Rachel's comments I think is really important for anyone who is looking at the wiki entry for the GrandLake theater because it will give readers a really good idea of just why the Oakland grand lake theater is such a gem.
Frankly I know that Allen Michaan would really appreciate having the full transcript included in the wiki entry, I just spoke with him tonight.
Is there some reason why you took out the text? I currently live in SF and I grew up about a mile away from the Grand Lake theater and as such really appreciate Allen's guts to post the messages on his marquee.
I can give you my cell ph if that helps you.
Best regards,
Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katt123 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
oops--this is the first Talk post I've ever done, so didn't realize I had to sign off with the four tildas. Katt123 (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
A belated thank you for taking the time to fully explain the review process to me. I first saw Warren on the Now PBS program several years ago and was impressed with her intelligence and clear thinking. You really did a great job on her article.
I lived in CA for several years - Palo Colorado Canyon just up from Garapata Beach, just north of the Rainbow Bridge. I spent some time at Esalen as well. It is a beautiful place and I have very fond memories of that area.
Also, it is good to see you at the OWS article - it needs good editors like you and I hope you continue to spend a little time there. Gandydancer (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Binksternet can you help?
I posted to Cue cat as I said I would. Once again Bbb23 undid my work as he has done to all other. But in the process of dismantleing my work he left out the Codie Ward for cue cat. Would you look over my links for the award and consider improving the file of cue cat on my behalf for the codie award? Seems, me being new and female is hurting me. Can you help improve the cue cat file? I have left the links and info in the discussion page. Thanks ProofPlus Professional Researcher 16:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)
I've run into your name a few places and I have a random request due to your GA experience. I have listed death panel as my first GAN. I'm slightly concerned it may be rejected due to a lack of a formal copy-edit. (I've tried my best to copy-edit and compress the physician/academics/politicians reaction and analysis, as the peer review suggested.) Might you take a quick look and give a bit of feedback on the article in case there are some potentially deal-breaking changes I can make before it is reviewed? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
A few thoughts: The very first sentence makes no sense. Not a promising start! The rest of the article is not neutral in tone, that is, too much promotion for HR 3200. The word "reform" is used to beat the reader over the head, even though it refers to a proposed bill. There are three dead URLs. The article is too repetitious about the concept of death panels being false. Once established, the point does not have to be continually repeated. I don't like the two horizontal galleries of influential parties. If they are not major actors such as Palin and Gingrich then their presence is undue weight. Why is there a wikilink to job-killing?Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for going in and rectifying the addition of "stuntman" to Keaton's résumé. Actually I think he did stunts on occasion, but I have no citation for that at present. Maybe it is in one of his bios or an interview, but I'm certain he did work as a stuntman now and again. He is simply not notable for it. Good catch. Djathinkimacowboy 20:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, it looks as though I abandoned you... all I can do is make mention of stuff I have known since childhood. All I know is Arbuckle and Schenck naturally found him to be the best stuntman available. He was generally kept from wasting his time that way, but he'd do it if he liked the project.
This reminds me of Ebert, just writing last Friday. He asked stars why they did cruddy films, when they were stars and it was embarrassing. They said because they needed the money for something or other, and because no one would ever really 'see' them in the lousy films anyway....
Sorry, I just never had enough time to read enough about Buster, but I got to see him when I was a kid with my parents and that has always been more than enough for me! Djathinkimacowboy 10:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The information i added from this site http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-03/politics/30353835_1_tea-party-movement-unfavorable-view-positive-views is not copyrighted. I will not allow you to do damage control to the occupy movement, I am re-adding the information because it IS NOT copyrighted, do not revert it again.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I have to also ask that you quit lying. The Business Insider article was not copyrighted. There were two sources for that information not one, so at the very most it merited deleting one of the references and not the entire edit. You have been disruptive and I ask that you get consensus before further editing the Occupy pages.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
You have reverted my edit a second time under false pretenses, this time I added the information under a separate source and not even the one you reverted it for. If you do this again I will ask an admin to block you from editing the article, you have been warned.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
While I refrain from editing at Nikola Tesla, I've noted a lot of activity from this Slushy user. Is Slushy going to be a problem? I think you ought to be more careful who gets in to work on the article. There were lots of facts and citations I wanted to correct, but I declined due to personal differences with a separate editor. Anyway, just a question - and maybe a heads up too.
Did you see my reply about Buster Keaton? Please drop a line at my talk page, will ya? Djathinkimacowboy 10:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
AND:
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
For work on Nikola Tesla, Buster Keaton and other valiant deeds. Djathinkimacowboy 10:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC) |
In regard to your comments on my talk page, "You should never have started the review". I didn't start the GA review, it was started by Amadscientist, I was simply the first person to make any observations. I would also like to point out that only 1 of my edits to the article has not been reverted so I am not the "nominator" nor have I "made significant contributions to it prior to the review".--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed some minor back-and-forth at the article. Should it not be protected for the time being? It is in good shape and I see no reason why certain editors are allowed into it only to make silly changes. I myself do not venture into the article at all. Djathinkimacowboy 06:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a new editor making what I think are poor changes to various Latin music articles such as Afro-Cuban jazz which I know you have worked on. Care to check in and see what can be done? No need to reply here... Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear Binksternet Thank so much for the barnstar! Much appreciated, and it is wonderful to see that someone else here sees that there is something very disturbing about that page. Unfortunately, there is still much work to be done with that page, especially the passage that seems to imply that all Soviet Jews were Communists, which is why they did not deserve "lenient" treatment, which is deeply troubling. I'm going to attach a neurality tag on that article until that matter is sorted out. But in the meantime, thank so much and please have a wonderful day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
THANKS! I love that photo and have never seen it before, frankly. I have a BK file where I keep my favorite images. Djathinkimacowboy 19:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Binkster, I made the original edit directly from the book in question (The 479th Fighter Group in World War II: in Action over Europe with the P-38 and P-51), which is of course why it was in block quotes. Your reversion was in order since the text was/is accurate.--Reedmalloy (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in the Dispute Resolution forum-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
If you will not be too alarmed, I'd like to enquire whether I might be able to count on you for mediation. There is an editor - I'm sure you know DIREKTOR - causing problems at the talk page. It is the section dealing with Tesla's photo. I have at the moment asked another editor to help, but I can never be sure whether that editor will reply to me or not. I'd be grateful for a fresh set of eyes on this and a discreet assistance! Djathinkimacowboy 19:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
You told me not to get lost in this or that primary source. And I agree, but except perhaps yourself no one was lost. We were discussing inclusion of both studies. DMSBel (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
In most non-audio applications the actual waveform of the transmitted signal must be preserved, not just its frequency content. Thus these equalizing filters must also cancel out any phase shifts (unequal delay) between different frequency components.
You deleted the above from equalization stating that it was "unlikely". The article already explains why this is necessary in analogue television. It is also important in digital communications (which probably justifies "most" but "many" might be better). In fact dispersion was the limiting factor of early submarine telegraph cables. SpinningSpark 22:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Did you really make a second revert 24 hours and 1 minute after the first? [1] [2] NYyankees51 (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Swarm X 01:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Binksternet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I see now and fully understand that I have been unhelpful in my work on the Maafa 21 article, specifically in making content reversions on November 16, 17 and 19; all without support from article talk page consensus. In fact there is no consensus at this point on the talk page. I promise to refrain from further reversions in the article until and unless a clear consensus develops on the talk page or on noticeboards. With this promise of mine, I will not be able to game the system (though that was never my intent) nor will I be able to perform the 1RR-style edits that other editors will continue to enjoy. I promise to work toward consensus as necessary on the talk page or elsewhere. With this promise of mine, the block is no longer necessary to protect Wikipedia from my hand. Per blocking policy, the block is a preventative measure, not a punitive one, and I have shown the worthiness of my word in the past when I promised a self-imposed 1RR limitation for six months from January to July 2011. That voluntary 1RR promise was kept to the letter, and so will this promise of 0RR at Maafa 21 until consensus is clear. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Your offer of 0RR at Maafa 21 is accepted in good faith, please do not breach it. SpinningSpark 21:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Why do you revert all my recent additions of Chemiakin's sculptures? I agree that in some cases they might not really belong to the articles, like in the case of Domestic violence, but in other cases your edit summaries are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GreyHood Talk 17:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Binksternet! As your MILHIST Military Avation Task Force coordinator, I'd like to conduct a short questionaire to give me an idea of what you would the task force to achieve and the capabilities of yours that might contribute positively to the task force. The four questions of this questionaire are:
Please reply by copying and pasting the following at User talk:Sp33dyphil#MILHIST Military Aviation questionnaire and filling it out.
; ~~~ #My strengths #Articles I'd like to see the task force improve #: #: #: #: #Sources which I have #: #: #Articles I'm willing to provide assistance #:
Thank you for your assistance. Regards --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hope you had a nice thanksgiving. I keep planning to return to the 1953 article but the Occupy protest and other domestic issues (Income inequality in the United States, Koch Industries,Grover Norquist, Hydraulic fracturing) keep distracting me. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
In addition:
For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Message added 05:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
PROJECT NEWS
WikiProject Conservatism faces the ultimate test
ByLionelt
On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the author's talk page.
Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal.
In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in FrancebyEdmund Burke.
October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.
Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.
Timeline of conservatism is moved
ByLionelt
Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is Timeline of modern American conservatism.
I see that the Steinway article continues to be bizzarely dynamic and controversial. You recently removed a clause that denoted the company's practice of importing some of their product line from overseas suppliers. Because of the beginning of the sentence focusing on the somewhat unique hand assembly process used on American and German Steinways, this did change the meaning of the sentence and make it less complete as a descriptor of the company and its business. I do not see why the national origin of those non hand-made imports is at all relevant (and in this day, is undoubtedly prone to change), but would it not be more accurate to not imply by the current form of this passage that Steinway sells only hand-made pianos (which is how I read the net of your edit)?--Rwberndt (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for posting on the NPOV page in support of my proposals. I appreciate that you took each one at a time.--Factchk (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
just thought I would point that out due to the clutter in the section. It's really hard to read for *me*, and I was in most of it. Elinruby (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Please note that you violated 1RR at the article. Kindly self-revert.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Binksternet
I am a professional singer based in England. I was surprised at how many factual errors were in the Falsetto article.
You were referring to literature which is very old, and has since been found to be inaccurate. I have taught singing for my whole life, and am in touch with very important authorities on matters of the voice (for example Mr Mansel V Griffiths, FRCS http://www.expertsearch.co.uk/cgi-bin/find_expert?2275, founder of the first voice clinic in the UK).
I would like to make alterations to the Falsetto page as it is currently very misleading. Unfortunately there are not many references as the internet (and also many books) are full of misleading misinformation (which people like Mr Griffiths have no time to correct). For example the animation refers to the phonation of the vocal chords (not falsetto at all). Another problem is Falsetto has nothing to do with vocal chords, instead the sound is created by the vibration of false folds above the vocal chords. The article also mixes up the history of castrato singing with falsetto. Obviously the two are very different (in addition to being very different from the technique of counter tenors)!
I’m not sure how invested you are in this article – I would appreciate you at least considering my amendments, and allow me to replace or remove any inaccurate information. Although some of the information is referenced, the references themselves are outdated and the ideas have been disproved and replaced.
Regards
Pavel M. Josifek pavelmjosifek.com 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)~ Carlmarche (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Since there was little discussion and no resolution to my proposal to add a short subsection titled ’Iranian coup supporters’ to the 1953 Iranian coup article, I'm doing a Request for Comment on the issue as well as polling editors active on the 1953 Iranian coup article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll look at it in a day or so. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Kurt Chew-Een Lee at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Resolved by motionatWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:
Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:
- Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.
For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
On7 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article On The Issues (magazine), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the progressive feminist magazine On The Issues has also published articles about animal rights? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/On The Issues (magazine).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC) 08:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Binksternet, On the Maunsel White article I removed the category tag that listed White as a recipient of the Elliott Cresson Medal because that was actually a different (but related) Maunsel White.
The following PDF article from Louisiana State University mentions the link between the original Maunsel White (the one who has an article on Wikipedia) and his grandson, Maunsel White III (the one who won the Cresson medal, and who no doubt deserves a Wikipedia article): http://www.bus.lsu.edu/bedeian/articles/MaunsellWhite-NO1988.pdf
However, I cannot figure out how to prevent the reference to Maunsel White on the page listing Elliott Cresson Medal recipients from automatically linking to the article for the wrong Maunsel White. Do you know how to fix this? See the reference to Maunsel White here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Cresson_Medal
Sincerely, --Skb8721 (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
lease look here, feel free to copy and expand to create an article on this if you want:[3] Comments welcomed. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Another editor removed the modified LRAD sentence, pointing out (quite correctly) that it's out of place in a section about complaints by local residents. I restored it, but put it in the "Police Reponse" section, where it will not imply a SYNTHy "response" to the resident complaints about noise. I also clarified the sources -- if you read carefully, it appears that no one, even the protesters who tweeted, claimed that the police used the LRAD as anything other than super-loud megaphones to broadcast police instructions to protesters. (The closest anyone came was one protester claiming that the devices are "usually used in combat" and pointing out that they're capable of emitting loud tones to drive people away. No one actually says the NYPD did that.) Have a look. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I've replaced a terrible Bixby Creek Bridge photo but I don't know how to remove the wording at the top. Could you take a look at it? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
On10 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kurt Chew-Een Lee, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after earning the Navy Cross and getting wounded in combat, Lieutenant Kurt Chew-Een Lee took a Jeep and returned to the battle arena with his arm in a sling? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kurt Chew-Een Lee.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thank you for uploading File:SaipanMass.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm still rather green at the whole wikipedia thing. I'm not sure how to link specific edits, but if you look at my talk page, you will see that my recent edit on Steinway seems to have attracted the attention of our IP friend who supports other pianos in a rather aggressive and most unwelcome manner. Can you help me to understand where I go when another editor has edited my user page in a slanderous manner, asserting that I work for Steinway, when in fact I work for an automaker and have played Yamaha euphoniums (flunked class piano twice !!) since 1976 and have no such affiliation? It amazes and disturbs me that the Steinway article is so dynamic. With Samick, a company with a past history of procuring old, respected names and assigning them to new sources possibly in the process of acquiring what has been a generally respected piano maker, I would expect this in the near future, but now? Anyway, I tried to make light of it and dont feel a simple deletion in the logs speaks well to my side (the truth), but I really feel that what this user did on my user talk page was unacceptable, but do not know the wikiprotocol to follow to object. Can you enlighten me?--Rwberndt (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.
On12 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mt. Shasta Brewing Company, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Mt. Shasta Brewing Company's slogan, "Try Legal Weed", was initially refused by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mt. Shasta Brewing Company.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks for the appreciation. :) --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I saw your recent and 100% correct on the Moore article. I made that same type of edit a few months back and his minions shredded it. Hope it stays in, but his followers don't like anything remotely resembling verifiable facts in that article. It's probably the only BLP that uses the subject as a source, too.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
For diplomacy and modesty! Gandydancer (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Binksternet - this 92.x guy is becoming a real problem - given his track record, I'm assuming every edit he makes is dubious and needs to be reverted. You think it's time to ask for an IP range block? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I performed the review. You can see it and respond at Talk:Agnes Mary Mansour/GA1. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Marching fire at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The information I edited was not incorrect and was taken directly from the 2010 United States Census cited in the sentence immediately before my edits. Please check your facts before reversing legitimate changes. LACATony (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove the "breathy" portion again from the article. I am by no means convinced that there is any controversy here surrounding the term "breathy" as no sources have been produced with a counter opinion. Please participate in the talk page conversation, rather than creating edit wars.4meter4 (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi B. There are too many redlinks (deadlinks) and I think we have too many wikified titles in the TV section, and in the entire article actually. I think we should turn all Keaton's titles into a list, easy to read, reference and wikify when applicable. It ought to be in the form of a list instead of this awful mess that is nearly impossible to edit. A form of this message was posted at the talk page, but I wanted your input and help in this. Imagine how it would beautify and streamline the article! All we'd have to do is create the columns and move the text there; I'm short on time for columns but I'd be willing to do the rest if someone would do the columns and make a few title/text moves to the columns. :D Djathinkimacowboy 16:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, forget it. Djathinkimacowboy 03:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I responded at Talk:Cold fusion. Greg L (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
On18 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marching fire, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that General George S. Patton (pictured) praised the tactic of marching fire during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marching fire.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
On19 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grotrian-Steinweg, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a trademark dispute between piano makers Steinway & Sons and Grotrian-Steinweg resulted in establishing the legal concept of "initial interest confusion"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grotrian-Steinweg.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC) 08:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
hello,
before you reverting anything, you need to read our guidelines before perfoming a revert. Please read Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment carefully; I give you one example of text which is of high importance:
It is vital that people do not take these assessments personally. It is understood that we each have our own opinions of the priorities of the objective criteria for a perfect article. Generally an active project will develop a consensus, though be aware that different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area, such as this. Many projects have an assessment team. If you contribute a lot of content to an article you may request an independent assessment.
Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 17:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
B, now you see what is happening. The IP has continued disruptions at Fedora and at Bowler hat. Apparently the IP is doing nothing wrong and no one even warned the IP except me, three times now. They turned down my requests to have the IP blocked as a vandal, and won't even semi-protect the articles. So apparently the IP is just OK with them. Did you see the other editors coming out to revert the IP's edits besides you? I am advising User: Salvio giuliano about this[6]. Djathinkimacowboy 18:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just a quick reminder that edit warring is not a good idea. Just because it is being carried out on a talk page doesn't stop it being edit warring. If you disagree with the source then engage in discussion with the IP editor rather than repeatedly reverting their attempt at contributing. The talk page isn't an article, the claim may not be true but it isn't causing any harm because it isn't in the article at the moment. After repeatedly adding the source to the article, the IP editor decided to start a discussion on the talk page. By repeatedly reverting their attempt at discussion you could prevent a potentially productive wikipedian from becoming involved in the project. --Mrmatiko (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at WP:DRN regarding the classification of the article Otis Redding. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to help solve a problem. [7] (LAz17 (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)).
Hello, Binksternet, I disturb You as I do think that the table with the kills of Litvyak should be deeply corrected if not deleted at all. I have just published today the most updated book about Soviet airwomen, with the newest and unpublished data and information about Litvyak available on the market. There is absolutely - for instance - no evidence that Litvyak on 16 july shot down a German ace. That day the Luftwaffe Experten listed in the teble belly landed for an engine failure subsequently an air fight. Now, this is NOT a kill. Moreover, there is only one source - Pennington, pag. 140 - that states that Litvyak that day scored a kill, while Cottam (Women in War and Resistence) writes that Litvyak that day had just to belly land. But there is absolutely no proof that anyway the German ace was hit by Litvyak, as there is not known any claims record on Litvyak side where is noted exactly the Planquadrat Koordinaten or the exact point of any of her air victory. Still, on 1st of August 1943, the Jagdeschwaders engaged along the Mius front had not aircraft damaged and Litvyak was not the one who "taran"ned Merkle, as no one of the witness saw and says that. So I propose to delete those unaccurate credited victories. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The article is on my watch list. If you discuss proposed changes on the talk page I will respond there, and others will have a chance to weigh in. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
SPA has started again his personal war on Uruguay, using unreliable sources. See. --Fixertool (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
-- Fixertool (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess I was not clear at all with my reversion and my explanations: did you notice the article already includes two times the last text inserted? And it was inserted for the same user, if you check history. A little article with the same text, basically, included THREE times and by the same user? I wonder why. -- Fixertool (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Vigorous debate on the merits is one thing, ad hominem attacks another. Guy Macon is getting worse. If you are administering this debate please reprimand him for calling other editors "liars". If you're not, please tell me where to file a complaint. Thank you.68.4.61.51 (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if ive sent you a message or not, apologies if i have but just a quick message of good will; hope you have a great winter holiday and a new year :) User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 18:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm no physicist, but I happened to notice the debate at Active noise control (doing some audio research) and it appears Wikifiximprove is correct. At about 340 m/s, 500Hz works out to a little over 2 feet in one wavelength. I've been acused of having a swelled head, but . . . . I think the 5000Hz figure looks believable. What is frustrating is that this is a classic example of a useful article and a potentially excellent analogy for making the subject understandable, that is unsourced - in either form.--Rwberndt (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Binksternet, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#ONGOING_DISCUSSION_-_Splitting_the_Article. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there, Sloggerbum (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Merry Christmas! | ||
May the year ahead be outrageously good and may all your articles be featured. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC) |
... for the speedy DYK reviewofCharles Howard McIlwain! Much appreciated. Lagrange613 15:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
I have requested dispute resolution here, and named you as one of the parties involved in the dispute. Be——Critical 04:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Query to the scientific community:
To the Directors of Physics Departments,
LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear, historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"
1) Is this science or pathological science? 2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information. 3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it? 4) What peer review journals do you source in this field?
Binksternet sir, P>S>1) Any suggestions before I move forward with this? 2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value?
Thank you for your time,
Gregory Goble gbgoble@gmail.com (415) 724-6702 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Goble (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect El Varón Domado. Since you had some involvement with the El Varón Domado redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
As an Elvis expert, I would agree with your argument concerning Elvis's predilection for very young girls. See Talk:Elvis Presley. Onefortyone (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.
This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |