Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SPECIFICO (talk | contribs) at 00:26, 9 August 2013 (→Ad-hom). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

Archives

Archive1 - August 2007 – June 2008, Archive2 - July–November 2008, Archive3 - November 2008 – May 2009, Archive4 - May–July 2009, Archive5 - July–August 2009, Archive6 - September–October 2009, Archive7 - October–December 2009, Archive8 - December 2009 – February 2010, Archive9 - March–April 2010, Archive10 - May–July 2010, Archive11 – July–October 2010, Archive12 – October 2010 – January 2011 Archive13 – January–March 2011 Archive14 – April–July 2011 Archive15 – August–October 2011 Archive16 – November–December 2011 Archive17 – January–February 2012 Archive18 – March–April 2012 Archive19 – May–July 2012 Archive20 – August–October 2012 Archive21 – November–December 2012 Archive22 – January–February 2013 Archive23 – March–April 2013 Archive24 – May–June 2013 Archive25 – July–August 2013

Hammond Organ

Thanks for the support in clearing up this article. In case it's not obvious, I try and go for getting one article up to good article status a month, and I think this is my next target. I'm a semi-pro musician doing about 50-60 shows a year and the Hammond has been my keyboard instrument of choice for decades (although these days I use a Nord Stage 2). I've got a few books to source and a lot of copyediting, but hopefully it'll be in good shape shortly. If you're interested in helping out, let me know. Ritchie333 16:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to help out. It's good to see actual references and cited text replace original research and patchwork editing.

I would like to offer my services as GAN reviewer, but the instructions say that a reviewer must not have made significant edits to the article. I have edited it many times to remove poor text and images but never to add significant text or images. I don't know for sure whether this frequent removal activity of mine counts as "significant", but a conservative reading of the rules would have me refrain from reviewing. Instead, I can do a thorough peer review, especially if you take the article to WP:PR to start a formal review. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm slowly working my way through Vail's book, which is the definitive source for this. Next job is to convert all the model lists to prose, which I can do from that source, plus a quick scan through Google Books for a second opinion (though for early pre B3 models, that might be difficult). Hopefully a couple of evening's work will get it in shape for GA in about a week or two. We can revisit the question of whether you're okay to review it on WT:GAN when we're in that state - right now, it's still nowhere near there yet, although the bits I've done (which should be obvious as they've got lots of sources in them) should be better. Ritchie333 18:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I blew through the article to tweak wording and make little MOS changes. I think because of its subject the article should be in US English spelling as well as US date style (dmy). It feels pretty complete—I have nothing to say about what might be missing from the article. Great work! Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Carolmooredc has given you a kitten for being such a clear headed guy! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

My favorite part of kittenhood is the needle-sharp teeth and claws combined with animal innocence. :)

Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Genius... User:Carolmooredc 01:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The F6F AND the F4U DID use the same basic engine as the T-Bolt did...

Dear Binksternet:

The PIPE Here...and in relation to the text you "deleted" from the P-47 T-bolt page, which reads as follows:

..."the same basic engine as used on the U.S. Navy's F4U Corsair and F6F Hellcat fighters, but with the addition of a turbocharger in its rear fuselage for even more engine power."...

...you MIGHT want to first check both the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 page, and the pages for the Corsair and Hellcat before making such a "correction" (?!?) as, except for the T-Bolt's turbocharger, the same basic type of P&W 18-cylinder mill, the Double Wasp, was used on all three aircraft, but with different induction systems between the T-Bolt versus the two naval aircraft, as regards similar text on the F6F...

"The Grumman F6F Hellcat was a carrier-based fighter aircraft conceived to replace the earlier F4F Wildcat in United States Navy (USN) service. Although the F6F resembled the Wildcat, it was a completely new design, powered by a 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800, the same powerplant used for both the Navy's earlier Chance Vought F4U Corsair and the United States Army Air Force's (USAAF) Republic P-47 Thunderbolt fighters."

Please check FIRST before reverting such an edit, as the Double Wasp radial mill WAS used on all three airframe types during World War II.

Thanks in advance and Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My concern was not whether it was true, the fact you added, but how it was inserted so clumsily. The reading flow should be a primary consideration. The fact about the shared engine is not so important that it needs to be presented in the first paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Another Chowkat sock

Hey, Binksternet. Hope all is well with you and yours. I think I've found yet another Chowkat sock and since my SPIs are almost always denied I thought I would ask you if you would be willing to write one up. Any interest? If not, thats okay. Cheers! GabeMc 20:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have been watching this person and wondering about him being a sockpuppet. Let me think about putting together a strong SPI, otherwise there is no use in trying. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it just me, or does this edit (and the editor) seem a little too familiar? GabeMc 03:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

• As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions02:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Help please

Hey there Bink, I thought of you today as I again review the Yodeling article which I mostly wrote. I've always loved Jimmie Rogers, but while working on the article, to my surprise it slowly emerged that it was the African American influence that actually created American yodeling, which is somewhat different than Alpine yodeling. I know that you have an interest in music and have an expert critical eye, and I am wondering if you'd take a look at the article and offer feedback--if you have any. Some parts may seem a little garbled because it was only as I continued with my research that I realized the African American roots of American yodeling. Perhaps you are too busy with other projects, and that is understandable. Gandydancer (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm working at an online gaming gig in Vegas this week, but we in the audio department often have some waiting-around time while the organizers get organized about what they are going to do next on stage. I'll take a look. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I put something on the talk page about 19th century African American practice. I think the African origin of the yodel should be given equal or at least parallel treatment. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The problem was that when I first began to work on the article I had no idea about the African American roots, and had to work it into the existing information in bits and pieces as I slowly learned more about it. It is like so much of our version of American history, for instance until only recently Americans have not been aware that George Washington Carver was not the only American "negro" of accomplishment (the victors write the history...). Any further comments will be appreciated. Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ted Andrews

On 2 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ted Andrews, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Ted Andrews' book Animal Speak aims to help the reader learn how "to listen with animal ears and to see through animal eyes"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ted Andrews. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1 is now three weeks old and has now had over 250KB of discourse. I don't think I have ever been involved in an FAC like this. As I stated at the beginning of this FAC, Whaam! will experience the 50th anniversary of its first exhibition on September 28 that I hope can be celebrated at WP:TFAR. Before that, however, we must make a decision on the quality of this article here at WP:FAC. Please consider making a Support or Oppose decision some time soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an unanswered point I brought up about David McCarthy's comment about "winning hearts and minds". Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I gave the article my Support. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and... audiocassettes

Greetings Binksternet. Just seen your edit at Gramophone record and it occurs to me that that bit about audiocassettes might be valid (if sourced). I don't know enough about the subject (other than original research) to do anything about it, but as you seem to, maybe you could add something along those lines. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the user's text might be valid but so much was not. I will take a look around to see if the audiocassette assertion can be supported by RS. Binksternet (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard

Hello Bink. Please review WP:COI. I have no conflict of interest in any of the articles I edit here and I hope you will moderate the tone in which you address me on WP. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

COI says "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." You are advancing outside interests rather than providing a neutral biography of Rothbard for the reader. Your behavior is perversely obstinate as evinced by your continual refusal to allow wording which portrays Rothbard primarily as an important leader of the Austrian School. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Bink, I have no such "outside interests." If you believe otherwise, please state whatever it is to which you refer. Per policy, even if you (erroneously) believe that I am biased, the policy clearly states that bias does not constitute COI, so your assertions of COI are not appropriate. You refer to my "continued refusal to allow wording...?" The fact is that I initiated an RfC -- that is the epitome of good WP process and has nothing to do with refusal. Please don't attack me. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet: FYI this long diff of a lot of removed Steeletrap talk page material does have discussion of possible academic conflict of interest for Steeletrap. Unless I missed it, SPECIFICO only has stated

{{od}Bink: I've just seen your recent post on BLPN. I need to ask you: Please state your concerns and discuss text and policy without the repeated presumptions, aspersions, and disparagement of other editors. It is unnecessary and it disrupts the discussion of content which is necessary to resolution of disputed text and references. Please do not frame the discussion in terms of your beliefs about other editors, and please use diffs to document any specific behavior you believe is problematic. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you...

Sorry to bother you, quick question: I went through, for the first time, WP:RA and found a person, Daniel Somers, for whom an article was requested. So I made it up, but do I need to do anything at WP:RA to register that the RA has been started as requested? LudicrousTripe (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not seeing the article request at WP:RA. If I had found it, I would have removed it because the article is now created. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

MFDWarning

Was it necessary to template a user of +4,500 edits -- Really? †TE†Talk 21:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Two things:

1 – That template is created automatically when you nominate a page for deletion. I had nothing to do with its format or content.

2 – I do template veteran users when I wish to do so, for instance to get their attention in a hurry. Check out the essay User:DESiegel/Template the regulars for some arguments supporting that stance. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thought there was an option to add detail or trim the more condescending stuff down before saving the page. Maybe not. I'm guessing you've fielded these concerns before judging by your quick link in defense of templating vet editors. That's your prerogative. Just figured it needed to be said. †TE†Talk 22:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Compact disc

Hm, actually, where is "Compact disc" coming from? And why does the article start off as "compact disc", then? The logo, at best, says "COMPACT disc", and it's pretty much a graphic-only thing like so many other things. Despatche (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I recommend discussing this at the article talk page. Lots of folks will chime in, eventually. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sam Peckinpah Article

Why did you roll my tag back??? You found none of the suggestions I made useful. or you just personally hate me???User:JCHeverly 19:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I put your comments on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ad-hom

Have you any proof whatsoever for this bizarre claim/personal attack beyond the misinterpretations of a self-confessed POV-pusher? I challenged your identical ad-hom attack at RS/N and you've conveniently ignored it. You seem happy to heap baseless accusations on top of baseless accusations but don't seem keen to back them once they are queried. Despite the crocodile tears and feigned hysteria, Carol hasn't once been able to substantiate any of her claims about me and has since retracted some, admitted she didn't understand the context of others and misinterpreted other comments entirely. Yet you continue to attack me on the basis of her now-discredited "evidence" and won't provide any of your own. Stalwart111 01:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You started out as a helpful editor guiding Steeletrap through Misplaced Pages's minefields; you were the first person to edit Steeletrap's talk page on April 17, 2013, and also the first to edit Steeletrap's user page. You were doing well as a guide until April 20, 2013, when you suggested the "walled garden" interpretation of the Mises Institute biographies. You repeated this the next day, and the walled garden meme has ever since been part of the conversation between SPECIFICO, Steeletrap and yourself. Your own admitted lack of knowledge about economics was the problem—you did not bother to look further afield for more sources. By April 22 you were effectively in the camp of SPECIFICO and Steeletrap, agreeing with them that any book published by the Mises Institute should be removed. You repeatedly supported them in their removals of academic achievements, all while they added more negative information. Binksternet (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether you're being serious or deliberately obtuse and evasive. You personally attacked me with nothing more than your interpretation of Carol's bizarre claims (many since withdrawn, though she continued with different nonsense again today). Yes, I welcomed him, as I've done for many new editors into whom I've run at AFD. I've explained my position with regard to WP:WALLED and walled garden several times (you have conveniently skipped over that explanation; Carol, having used it to attack me, has now acknowledged she didn't understand it at all). I didn't agree with them - they agreed with me.

Did you even read that diff you posted? All I suggested was that they "seem like valid concerns". The stuff before that was written by SPECIFICO. Prior to that, I raised a broad concern about a small group of articles being a closed system (a walled garden) based on their common sourcing, circular referencing and common genesis (what you childishly refer to as a "meme").

You skim-read (from the looks of it) pages and pages and pages of discussion, decided you liked Carol's completely unsubstantiated accusations and decided to remake them somewhere else in a more coherent fashion (something she has so far failed to do). I maintain you have absolutely no basis for your claims:

1. That I have suggested that, "anybody connected with the Mises Institute should not be counted as reliable sources". Especially since I have argued the opposite several times, including with Steeletrap and SPECIFICO.

2. With regard to any of the conclusions you drew from this discussion which you seem to have completely misinterpreted.

3. That I have argued anything with regard to the massive list of articles you claim I have included in my commentary, despite the fact that I've never even read, let alone edited, most of them.

4. That I have anywhere been responsible for, "unbalancing some biographies of people associated with the Mises Institute".

Do you have anything at all to substantiate your ridiculous personal attacks beyond Carol's own (and now completely discredited) personal attacks? Or did it just seem like a fun thing to do at the time? Beyond anything else (given you "evidence" above), how is my highlighting a concept/user essay justification enough for your accusations (especially at numbers 1, 3 and 4 above)? Stalwart111 09:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we may have a WP:Competence issue on our hands, Stalwart. The constant personal attacks and erroneous accusations (in the case of carol, so blatantly erroneous that they are often "retracted") from user:Binksternet and user:carolmooredc are making it impossible for us to effectively function as editors in these Misesian articles. You are for instance accused of wanting to delete all Misesian sources from Misplaced Pages (a position no one has endorsed) because you asked user:SPECIFICO to specify inappropriate or "bad" sources that should be removed from Mises articles. (When you asked that question, you had not endorsed her conception of "bad" sources; and afterwards you maintained strong disagreements.) Steeletrap (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You are free to think what you like about my competence, but you should note I have developed a very wide range of high- and top-quality articles for Misplaced Pages, many of which are on topics that were entirely new to me at the beginning of my writing. I'm a quick study and I'm confident if I began to write about, say, Murray Rothbard, I would be able to get the career and the controversy across to the reader in a clear and straightforward manner. Right now I have a lot of other tasks in real life and on Misplaced Pages so I have not been writing about the Austrians. My main problem with you and SPECIFICO (and Stalwart111 as enabler) is the vitriol you demonstrate against the Misesians who you work to minimize or muzzle. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Bink: You really need to stop falsely attributing undocumented actions and bad faith motives to other editors. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)