User talk:Binksternet

/Archive1

Wikistalking

I've been aware for some time that my edits are being frequently adjusted/deleted/mangled and just plain monkeyed with by some one who uses your name. It's a case of wikistalking! Or is it? On looking into your contribution history, it appears to actually be you. The surprising bit is that there is such an overlap of interests. Audio, WWII, some aspects of crypto, ...

Your edits are often improvements in style or clarity, especially when I was attempting to shoehorn something into an existing niche. Some are the usual difference of opinion, stylistically. Still others are more substantial.

Under this last rubric, we find the deletion of a point at Loudspeakers regarding the inverse relation between cone size and distortion at low frequencies. It is so well known as to be a triviality that response for any driver drops after a point related to size (and impedance match to free air), not resonance (that's an additional issue having to do with mass and restoring force which are in principle independent of cone size).

That being so, it's clear that a larger cone will begin to roll off at some lower frequency, mass and restoring force being held constant. The distortion issue is slightly less clear. There are magnetic changes which occur with increased VC current (ie, at higher excursion) and there are mechanical effects which are more serious at or near mechanical limits (ie, at higher excursions). Furtheremore, higher excursions exacerbate the effects of some construction variances, specifically an noncentered voice coil. Thus we see that greater excursion is correlated with greater distortion causing effects. The unclearness comes from some drivers which are optimized for high excursion at the expense of other issues (often greater cone/voice coil mass or decreased efficiency from an underhung VC. The point is one which Kippel in Germany has investigated at some length and for which articles (in JAES etc) go back as far as the 1930s (at least that I've seen reference to). So, to decrease distortion, reduce excursion for the average driver, and to increase low frequency output (w/o Bose style -- or any -- electronic compensation) increase the size of the driver. All assuming lack of some impedance matching enclosure such as horn or some such.

This leaves us with exactly the point in the lines you deleted. Smaller drivers tend toward higher distortion at the same output level, and with higher excursion, also required in smaller drivers Larger drivers reduce the excursion requirement, and so -- other things being equal -- the distortion. Since the situation is exacerbated at lower frequencies (ie, with subwoofers) larger is still more better in them.

Finally, for the ie (not i.e.) and eg (not e.g.), these are purely stylistic differences not Holy Writ. Are you one who does not insert a comma after the penultimate item in a list, or one who inserts a comma there? One is termed the Oxford style, both are widely sued by the very literate. In my case I don't use the periods. You do, but it's not clear to me that you are correct in zapping the periodless versions out of hand.

Best wishes, and happy wikistalking. ww (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Winston, you and I appear to share a couple of key interests. I've been a longtime consumer of WWII history and I am very interested in all professional audio subjects as it's my chosen career. Crypto falls under my gaze only when related to WWII. Other than that, my editing efforts regarding musicians, films, silent films, 78rpm records, architecture, San Francisco Bay Area locations, cruise ships–ocean liners and tango music don't seem to intersect at all with your world. There are 2,322 articles on my watchlist; the chance that we run into each other is high, especially after it's established that we each like to contribute in not one, but two, common general subjects.

That said, your accusation that I am wikistalking is false. I definitely don't go to your contribs list to see what you've been up to; that's not my concern. I don't follow you around and try to interfere with your edits. What does alert me is when you've taken an interest in rewriting an article that is on my watchlist. Here, I make sure to set aside enough time to carefully analyze what you've added in plain sight and what conscious or unconscious biases or errors you've introduced in the process. In the past, a few of your additions and copyedits have included assumptions about subwoofers or loudspeakers that come across as universal, though they may not be at all. For instance, in late March 2008, you wrote that one of the primary purposes of a subwoofer enclosure is to increase its efficiency so that a smaller amplifier can be used. Personally, I would have said that one target enclosure design goal would be along that continuum, but that other concerns could easily come to the fore, such as trying to achieve maximum output power or lower the low-frequency extension or lower the amount of distortion. Any of these can be (and have been) design goals to the detriment of efficiency. It's little word choices like this, showing a limited viewpoint, which I keep an eye out for. Others do, too; it was actually User:Noodle snacks who followed up and re-edited the example I just mentioned so that it was less black and white.

Your recent Loudspeaker edit mentioning the inverse relationship of woofer size and distortion at low frequencies made this assumption: Size affects radiation patterns so that large drivers are usually unacceptable, while larger sizes are required for low distortion low frequency output (smaller drivers require proportionally larger cone excursion, which increases distortion in several ways). Okay, I had two problems with this sentence. Large drivers are unacceptable for what purposes and under what conditions? How does size affect radiation pattern? A little explanation would go a long way to help the reader understand what is intended. Then there's the part about smaller drivers and larger excursion... Though true for single small drivers trying to do the work of larger ones, the statement is patently untrue if large numbers of smaller drivers are employed in one enclosure. And, as you note, there exist some rare driver designs that are optimized for low distortion at higher excursion. I took the whole sentence out because it was that much flawed.

You know, the topic of distortion coming from extremes of voice coil excursion deserves its own section so that the various issues and counterbalancing forces can be discussed and explained. You appear to be hip to the nuances... Be bold! Binksternet (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Another example of why I take a careful look at your editing work is this addition on June 13 to the article about loudspeaker enclosures: "While simultaneously, and incidentally, addressing issues higher in the audible frequency range such as diffraction from enclosure edges, the baffle step effect when wavelengths approach enclosure dimensions, crossovers, and driver blending." This sentence is 100% confusing. It has no subject! Its iterative clauses offer only obfuscation, yet the edit summary you provided says "clarity".

The "eg" and "ie" issue is one User:Dicklyon has also harped about on your Talk page. I agree with him. The Wikipedia manual of style recommends using two periods. See WP:ABB Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... It was a joke....

Your point about unclarity is correct in some instances, which I noted in my comment.

Your suggestion that lots of small drivers can have lower excursion an so lower distortion is certainly correct, but it is the acoustic equivalent of using a larger driver, and the reason for the lower distortion is essentially that excursion is reduced. As for the issue of distortion occurring only (or perhaps significantly) at extremes of excursion in a given driver, Zaph (in Wisonsin?) has conducted extensive tests of many drivers from assorted makers and it does not appear to be experimentally verifiable. Zippel (in Germany) has analyzed the subject in considerable depth ans has developed some analytical techniques for exploring the issue. He also reports experimental verification for the distortion outside the extreme excursion regime. Although one of the drivers he analyzed seems to have an asymmetric assembly problem (glued wrong, perhaps). So I have to disagree with your excision of the these observations in the articles we've been editing, though perhaps not with your understanding of the issue. You are correct that, if it cannot be included in existing articles, of which I am still not convinced, there should be a separate article dealing with the issue.

The difficulty of writing for a general, non-technically informed audience, in a general article which will be used as an article of first resort by such readers, and doing so concisely, is not minimal. It occurs in other writing as well (consider most computer technical manuals). Increased clarity is good, but excision of comments from knowledgeable editors shouldn't be a first resort.

As for the "ie, eg" issue, opinion differs amongst language stylists and, rather like English spelling, there is a bit of anarchy in such matters. If WP takes a strict prescriptive (rather than descriptive) position (or has), than it has -- in my view shamefully -- joined the Miss Fidditches of the world. Kind of like the difference between fans of Webster's 2nd Unabridged vs fans of the 3rd. ww (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The joking tone comes across much better in person. o_O

You and I are certainly working with the same goals in mind. We both want an article to be comprehensive and thorough. I'm sure we'll be able to achieve these goals here. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I'm getting too woozy to sort out whether your edits or mine make more sense here, but we were having an edit conflict in the one section. Having other open edits to backup to, I cede the matter to you, but note I probably undid most or all of your changes in that "cable names" section. Sorry, but don't see well enough right now to reconstruct, and my version was good enough once I fixed my own "counts error" in table. Glad to see someone is tending the "store". Good luck! // FrankB 05:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I took this to Talk:Power cable. See you there... Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Binksternet has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page USS Missouri (BB-63), and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Three revert warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Okinawa. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on SS Monterey history please do not edit war. As you can see there were other editors who agreed with you. If you are having problems with an IP address like this (a person who is probably not aware of WP:3RR), you can alway leave a message on my talk page or at WP:ANI. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Phase Linear

I have added the "Official Phase Linear web page" link back in to the reference section after I saw that you had removed it. Please reconsider. Dean has more information and history about Phase Linear than almost anybody. Dean and I were two of the last people to close the doors in Lynnwood. His site is much more informational than "commercial". Much more so than the other site in the references section. Thanks for your consideration. Bradl54 (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 12 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yucca Flat, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Rudget (logs) 09:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed your Yucca Flat article and thought you might be interested to know it is one of the most viewed DYK articles in July. See stats at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cbl62/sandbox3 . Good article and nice hook. Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cokeandpoprocks

Hi
How could Cokeandpoprocks get four warnings for his edits of Talk:Zodiac Killer today when he only edited it twice?
Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, must be too many open windows on my desktop. I'll revert my fourth warning. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Automatic add button

Even though we already confirmed that we disagree with each other on the disputed content, you would better refrain from using provocative and inflammatory language like "delete button". It implies that I'm deleting like a machine without thinking and your "add" is fully justified. That is insulting. I don't see such justification from either your statement at the talk page or edit summary.

As long as you can convince me that the content you want to keep it is relevant to the main topic, I would improve it even though my writing is not that good like you. However, your "add button" does not improve the quality of the article. Being well sourced does not warrant any "irrelevant subject". As you wrote previously, you want to keep it because the content contents your curiosity and "you want to". However, that is not a good reason for your disregard to reaching a consensus. Once, a newest addition is contested by editors, normally the addition is halt or removed until the dispute is settled down. You should not blindly add it because you want it. We need a formal meditation on this. --Caspian blue (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page reorganizing

Apologies. I was trying to improve and wasn't aware of this long-standing WP tradition. Thanks for mentioning that. If I may ask: who suppose to to delete discussions that are no longer relevant? For example, in the talk page of the dynamic range compression the request to add the 'multiband compressor' bit was long added. Thanks. Izhaki (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Old talk page entries that have no current relevance can be put into an archive. Check out Help:Archiving a talk page. It's pretty easy. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Added an achieve. Let me know if what I did is OK. Izhaki (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Artillery on Berlin

I read it some years ago, but did not make a record at the time of were I read it(Sigh!). But I heard it in a couple of documentaries and one only recently "Hitler's Secret Bunkers" an interesting program if the Battle of Berlin is an interest as it explains why the Germans fought so hard for Templehof --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Program looks very intriguing. I'll have to hunt that one down. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #7

In the area? You're invited to
San Francisco Meetup # 7
	Date: September 6th, 2008
	Time: 3 PM
	Place: Freebase HQ, San Francisco
prev: Meetup 6 - next: Meetup 8

You received this invite because you added your name to the Invite list. If you don't wish to be invited any more, simply remove your name. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Miller orchestra links

Hi Binksternet, I am wondering why the links I try to put are not comply to WP:EL. The bands I try to put in are worldwide reknown as top quality reproducing the sound of Glenn Millers music and also Glenn Miller specialists would agree to this (see Glenn Miller group in Yahoo). So why should Wikipedia not contain this information for its readers ? Of cause the bands work commercial, but they still care about the live performance of this music. Please comment on this.

I wonder if you've read WP:EL which talks about external links on Wikipedia. Check it out. Your links aren't about Glenn Miller specifically, first off, so they don't need to be on the page. The Glenn Miller article exists to tell people about him, not about you. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Crafton, California

I just wanted to stop by and compliment you on your work on the Crafton, California article. You worked very quickly to bring it up from little more than a stub to a well-sourced article. I'm impressed. Best, Alanraywiki (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your adding the bit about the convalescing patient naming the place was spot on. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Curacao, Queen Mary

I heard it pronounced that way on Unsolved Mysteries. If its not pronounced that way, then how is it? (And yes, it would be nice to have it mentioned in the article.) --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster says the island Curaçao is pronounced ˈkyu̇r-ə-ˌsō, -ˌsau̇, ˈku̇r-; ˌk(y)u̇r-ə-ˈ. The ship HMS Curacoa (D41) is an alternate spelling of that same word, but the alternate spelling suggests to me that the pronunciation of the last syllable would never be -ˌsau̇ and would always be ˌsō with a long oh. For broadest understanding by all readers, I would write the first pronunciation choice out as CURE-uh-so. And I would do this at the HMS Curacoa (D41) article, not at the Queen Mary article. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. I am also accepting Tigers on my user page if you are so inclined.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

LARES

Thanks for the heads up! I am watching the page now and will contribute as possible. At the moment I am not an expert on the guts but there are some interesting developments in the works and I will probably become a very knowledgeable one in the near future.... Charlie Richmond (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead changes to audio mixing

You have changed the lead definition of audio mixing from:

"Audio mixing is the process by which a multitude of sound sources are combined into two channels or another multi-channel format, like 5.1 surround."

to:

"Audio mixing is the process by which a multitude of sound sources are combined into one or more channels"

I think we might be approaching this article from a different point of view, where you think more of live sound, while I think more of studio mixing. I have left a comment on the scope of the audio mixing article in the talk page of the WikiProject_Professional_sound_production. Please have a look. In the mean time:

• If we exclude live monitor mixes, I think it is fair to assume that (roughly): 94% of today's mixes are two-channel, 5% surround, 1% mono.
• The surround in this definition puts a cup on the amount of output channels. "a multitude to to 5.1 surround" means many to a few, while "multitude to one or more channels" can mean many to many. Some readers can understand it as 100 channels are mixed into 50.

I personally think that the definition prior to your change was more suitable. Izhaki (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss this at Talk:Audio mixing. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Blanked image City Hall of Buffalo in article Art Deco

Hi, Binksternet, just to follow up our discussion in the Talk:Art Deco article (why the image is blanked out. Please, see discussion with Finlay McWalte Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing: sequence 5 July 30 :5.25 .Dieter Simon (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

First: I suspect you may have a poor understanding of the three revert rule. Two: The passage you quote has a very specific phrase. One you are repeatedly choosing to ignore. To be specific: "use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors." Myself and another editor engaged you on this topic a year ago. Rather than pursue the discussion, you simply waited a year and re-added the disputed information. That is a very poor tactic and not at all in the spirit of the guidline you quote. Please take your own advice and deal with this issue on the talk page. If you disagree with the majority opinion here, seek dispute resolution of some kind.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The normal course of WP:3RR action requires a warning after the third edit and prior to the editor being listed at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for their fourth, illegal revert. The warning I gave you satisfies that requirement. Further discussion of the issue should be carried out at Talk:El Sobrante, California. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

XB-17

Official response from the NMUSAF is the airframe is refered to as the Model 299 and XB-17, see discussion page on the B-17 Flying Fortress. -Signaleer (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Naturally. They've got a lot of history with the designation. I expected no different from them. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Chaplin & Ballet Méchanique

I was originally going to add a link in the Chaplin article to Ballet Méchanique. But then I read it, and realized that its only about the musical work, not about the film at all (except for the introductory paragraph). So I didn't link it, and suggested that someone fork the article so there would be something on the film. As it is now, there is nothing, so that your link links Chaplin with the musical work Ballet Méchanique - and there is no such link in actuality. -- kosboot (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Chaplin & Atheism

Hi, i have added back the statement regarding Chaplin's atheism in the "Political Beliefs" section of the article. I am afraid that you have not mentioned a proper reason as to why you reverted my edit in the article. I believe that the fact of Chaplin's atheism is relevant and must be mentioned in the section, since it is referenced by a reliable source and also because Organized religion is political by its very nature. If you disagree with me and would like to have that statement removed, then please provide me an appropriate reason (if there is any) as to why. Removing the sentence because it wasn't expanded upon or blended into the article (whatever that means), is not an appropriate reason.

Also, please keep in mind that Atheism is neither a religion nor an ideology. It just means disbelief in God and religion. It doesnt have to mean anything else. Therefore, in my opinion, the four word statement "Chaplin was an atheist" will suffice. Joyson Noel (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's marvelous. Good writing is out the window; patchwork English is in. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, What exactly do you mean? Are your statements related to the article, or are you saying that my writing skills are terrible. If the latter is true, then its OK. Be honest! I wont get mad. Joyson Noel (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Charlie Chaplin. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already read the talk page. This is merely a personal question that i have posed to you. There is no need to bring this up in discussion. If you are too proud to reply back. I will understand. Joyson Noel (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion about your writing skills. I have a poor opinion of a single sentence that doesn't fit the smooth flow of logic. Everything I have to say about this subject is at Talk:Charlie Chaplin. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Nanking Massacre

Please be a little more careful when you make reverts. I removed the term "infamous" which is an obvious example of POV language - state the facts and leave it to the reader to decide if someone is infamous or not - NPOV is a cornerstone of wikipedia.

Also if you wish to include such controversial claims as civilians being executed under the guise of military executions, then please provide reliable sources for such claims.

I don't mean to be rude, but not using blatantly POV/leading terms (infamous being pretty blatant) and having to provide citations for controversial claims are pretty basic requirements for wikipedia. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed few instances when "infamous" is appropriate. The Rape of Nanking is one of them. Many, many writers have used the adjective to describe the event. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)