User talk:Binksternet/Archive41

Cause of death vandal?

I haven't dealt with this one in a while, and I'm rusty on identifying it. 86.174.162.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) looks likely, though. What do you think? Subtle date changes in the infobox, "cause of death" additions, UK geolocation... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That's the guy. Same behaviour, same geolocation. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Gorillaz (album)

Davin Albarn co-founded the Gorillaz and it said "David Albarn chronology." Xerneas2016 (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You wrote "Gorillaz and Damon Albarn". Is that what is printed on the album cover, or listed as the artist in places where the music is sold? No, it's just "Gorillaz" without the Damon Albarn. Binksternet (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wheel (song) / Musicians and personnel

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PJ-HARVEY-The-Wheel-Rare-1-track-promo-CD-/152021167378?hash=item23652aed12:g:KvgAAOSwHxVW7Tjc

Before it was sold, I saved a picture with credits.

If you don't believe me, here are both of them:

http://www.imagebam.com/image/159f8b473615748

http://www.imagebam.com/image/fadeab473615740 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.132.130 (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think that the eBay auction item was legit? It could be fake. Binksternet (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Sarah Nash Gates

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Rona Ambrose is a pro-life feminist

Hello Binksternet,

Rona Ambrose, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada is has been active in "organizations including the Status of Women Action Group and the Edmonton Women's Shelter, and her education at the University of Victoria and the University of Alberta reportedly included an undergraduate degree in feminist studies". She was also the Minister of Status of Women Please stop reverting the Pro-life feminism article by refusing to include her in the list of pro-life feminists.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You have now violated the 1RR limitation placed on all abortion topics. You will want to revert yourself to prevent being blocked.

Regarding Rona Ambrose, your sources do not call her specifically a pro-life feminist. Instead, you are pointing to her pro-life stance, and you are arguing that she is a feminist because of her position. Don't you think it possible that an anti-feminist could possibly be given control of the ministry of the Status of Women? Yes, it's possible. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet,

Just to be clear, I only reverted your removal of Rona Ambrose once, not twice. Additionally, you have filed a complaint before attempting to discuss the issue on the talk page. As an experienced editor, I would have expected you to attempt to discuss the issue first, rather than unnecessarily escalating the matter. That being said, I have noticed you have now joined the discussion on the talk page, and we will continue this discussion there. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Clear? Your second revert most certainly restored Mother Teresa, even if you only intended to restore Rona Ambrose. Regardless of which woman you were trying to restore, the sanctions allow only one revert per day. You violated that. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Vandalisms

if you don't stop reverting my good edits i will start with real vandalisms in other pages, while if you stop i will stop i promise, they're not vandalisms so please stop or that's what i'll do--82.55.246.250 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

For an Italian guy like yourself I don't have to translate persona non grata. You have created far too many sockpuppet accounts to evade your blocks, so the only way you'll ever get back in to editing English-language Wikipedia is by laying off completely for six months then asking an administrator whether you qualify for the Wikipedia:Standard offer. Otherwise, I'm quite right in following WP:EVADE which says "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." That means anything you do with sockpuppets and IP addresses on Wikipedia while your Asasdfadf and Giubbotto non ortodosso ‎accounts are blocked can be freely reverted. It's obviously in Wikipedia's best interest for people to retain edits that improve the encyclopedia, so if you make good edits they might be retained, but there's no guarantee of that. You don't have the right to complain about it in any case.The main point is that your contributions have been determined to be far more disruptive than beneficial, so you are not welcome at this time to edit here. Perhaps you will see things differently in six months, and will be able to return to editing. Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok i'll stop for 6 months, but i found it a little bit unfair, nobody told me that i can't edit with differents accounts, my objective isn't vandalize en.wiki or annoy people, i just wanna edit, and if i have to wait i'll do it, but the edits that you are reverting were not vandalisms, that's the only reason why i did those sockpuppets--82.55.246.116 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Because of this stuff, your six months start on April 2. Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Super Tweeter

Dude I find you reverted the information I added onto the need for super tweeters.

Considering your background did you understand the content added?

Further you mention the needs are shown as application specific hence not deemed as a need. As a fact all needs/determinants are dependent on intended application. Pertinently here you don't need a super tweeter unless your source is hi resolution audio Mathurparijat (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's putting the cart before the horse. The need come s from the opposite direction. Somebody would need a super tweeter if they wanted to generate sounds in air at, say, 60 tweeters are kHz, to fit a certain application. The application might be industrial vibration tests, or ultrasonic cleaning, or sendin no benefit to the sound.g signals spending money to animals that can hear higher frequencies than humans. Your assertion was that a high resolution digital audio signal needs a super tweeter to reproduce it, which is backwards thinking. You are saying that a certain tool needs another certain tool, regardless of the job at hand. It's the job that matters. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope,you misappropriate the analogy, the need defines the components required to synthesize the goal. For music reproduction, you don't need a subwoofer if no subvocal vibes are recorded. Or there may be subvocal sounds generated by a band but if the recording process is incapable to capture it, it then makes no sense to purchase a subwoofer. Same for the super trebles.

Applications for super tweets other than music are hardly interesting for audio enthusiasts.

Users purchasing speakers(3, 4, 5 way)incorporating unneeded playback devices such as super tweeters for listening to plain CD audio would get mislead and cheated into spending money where it adds no benefit to the sound. My post clearly identified this and could have benefited the readers. 14.139.60.220 (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If your purpose is to provide consumer advice to the reader then I would like to see a WP:SECONDARY source, a reliable source talking about the issues. And it's not only audio enthusiasts who are using super tweeters. 16:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Huh?

What edit to Devo? I mean, I listen to them, I like them, but what disruptive edit are you referring to? I just checked and the genres are the same as they've always been. 142.55.48.30 (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You put "post-punk" as the genre but by far the most observers call them new wave. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, new wave and post-punk are both in the Devo article, as both can be easily sourced. 142.55.48.18 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yet new wave is by far the most commonly used genre for the band. So per WP:WEIGHT, the new wave genre is primary. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and never edited otherwise. The article looks fine to me as is. :P 142.55.48.18 (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Olivia Newton-John, Category:Teen idols

Hi, Binksternet. I see you reverted the addition of Category:Teen idols on Olivia Newton-John. I nearly did so myself, but after reading the description of Teen idol ("a celebrity with a large teenage fan-base"), opted not to. (I remember, personally, being a 13-year-old part of that teenage fan base, with a poster of Olivia on my bedroom wall, and countless pleasant dreams in which she was featured. But I digress.)

It would seem to me that ONJ would meet the description as much as anyone else, but looking at WP:CATDEF, I'm thinking of that from the opposite side of the coin. As I said, I think if anyone meets the criterion, ONJ does, but perhaps that means the category is inherently subjective and not consistent with WP:Categorization at all; perhaps it should be deleted.

What are your thoughts? TJRC (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

All I'm looking for is article text addressing the teen idol status so that the category can be supported. If there's a reliable source that describes somebody's teen idol status then some article prose about that situation would make the category stick. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Beck

"Beck is famous in a minor way for his singing." One of the best edits summaries I've seen in a while! Can I use it? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure! Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Janet Jackson's record sales

Hello, Binksternet. I need your help or your guidance. Several months ago, I tried to "fix" the Janet Jackson's figures of 160 million. Her sales was generally put on 100 million records in this decade (and the last). After, growing like 120, 130, 140 and now 160 in 2015 (even, recognized by herself). The 160 reference is from Billboard but said that its according to BMG's announcement and its because she was planning the release of her new album. Its really clear that are promotional figures, but some editor uses Verifiability, not truth (Billboard is reliable and in this way I think that its a secondary source) and its a own original research. I still thinking that the 160 million figures are wrong (it doesnt matter if have reliable sources) and if is a "own original search", maybe List of best-selling music artist also is and maybe in this "case" We can add the all reliable sources of Michael Jackson's 750 million, 520 million records for Madonna (not primary source), etc, etc. Why do you think?. Chrishonduras (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The Billboard source is definitely not reliable for the sales figure of 160M as they distance themselves from the number by attributing it to the record label BMG. The other sources are also not as reliable as would be a neutral third party who is familiar with (and conservative about) record industry sales practices. So 100M is the better number. Note that Variety and the Los Angeles Times used the 100M figure in 2013.[1][2] I put a higher value on articles such as the latter which concentrate on an entertainer's success and career numbers, trying to sort out the truth from the hype. On the other hand, passing mentions are not so valuable, especially in fluffy News Lite formulas. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Jazz

I've now been reverted twice by the IP and am being threatened with noticeboard action; I'm in general agreement that the galleries are too much. Is there an argument for WP:WEIGHT there? --Izno (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If not WEIGHT there's probably consensus against the guy. We must start a talk page conversation to see what page watchers think about it. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like another editor removed the gallery as well. We'll see if his edit sticks. --Izno (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Stratovarius

Are these (1, 2, 3) another case of that Brazilian IP that goes around changing genres in bulk? I've tried reverted their Stratovarius edits, but it looks like they're a bit determined. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Definitely the same guy. He's very persistent, determined to get his opinion into the world. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

In which case, I'll go ahead and follow your example by removing any genres from the Stratovarius albums that aren't mentioned in the prose. Either that, or since the band is by far most commonly referred to as power metal, I could leave that in by 'default' in the absence of an AllMusic prose description. Would that come under WP:WEIGHT or something? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's go with genres as they appear in the sources rather than trying to set a default, which would set a bad precedent for more complex artists. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, then that means several of the albums will need additional sources outside of AllMusic. In the review for the slightly obscure debut album, already, no concrete genres are stated in the prose (besides "heavy rock", which isn't really anything). That always leaves me stumped, because then it becomes a case of sifting through WP's list of reliable review sites and finding one of them that deals with the album in question. Tricky stuff. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Everybody's Talkin', you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luna (band). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That 92.1.230.195 User

I have reverted all his edits using the rollback tool. All of them were changing genres without sources or discussion. (Please send me a reply if you answer this.) Peter Sam Fan 14:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Peter SamFan. I was happy to see your reversions. This person is likely the persistent block-evading MariaJaydHicky. Even if it's somebody else, the person is a genre warrior, and we don't need any more of those. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like he's back at it again, under User:98.183.199.216. Peter Sam Fan 20:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that's someone else. Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on the promotion Mlpearc (open channel) 23:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Heh heh... An award for existing. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have some kind of comprehension problem?

Or is there a mental disability that is causing you to want everything stretched out beyond necessity when it could be simplified? I didn't change any consensus, I just simplified what was already in the article, or do you even look at the articles before shouting at the people who improve them? For one, there was already a consensus that Atheist is a progressive death metal band, and, for another, what is this edit about? Literally the only change you made is the removal of a comma. The text is exactly the same except it looks grammatically worse. 50.45.208.79 (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

More Giubbotto alts

Hi Binksternet. I just thought I'd let you know that I've noticed a few more disruptive User:Giubbotto non ortodosso alts, which I've now added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso. Maestro2016 (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Women are everywhere"

Hi Binksternet. I'm an editor (not very active till now) of the Italian Wikipedia, where the gender gap is a real issue. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks, --Kenzia (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Wave of British Heavy Metal/archive1

I started the procedure to have the New Wave of British Heavy Metal article promoted to WP:FA. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Wave of British Heavy Metal/archive1 needs discussants. Since you were a contributor to the article, I am hoping you might give some comments. Lewismaster (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

A debate has risen during the review about the term "movement" used to describe the NWOBHM. It would be greatly appreciated if you could add your opinion on the matter. Lewismaster (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Two things!!

Hiya again!! I have two questions today, first is [3] this a hoax page do you think? Also re: Women in Wikipedia, I noticed something recently. We have an article on Spanky and our Gang which seems like it might have been started as a bio of Elaine Spanky McFarlane Galvin, but was converted to just about the one band. Since she's had a career spanning 60s to present, and that band was only part of it and since that article really gives no place to put her discography, what would you think of somehow splitting it back off so that she has her own page and the Spanky and our Gang band is separate? I added her photo to the page recently and noticed how it seems to have been edited by wives/widows of band members to increase their role and diminish that of the person who got all the bookings and paid all the bills. Any ideas? Please "ping" me, as I'm not often on en:wiki without! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Bay Area WikiSalon series kickoff, April 27

Please join us in San Francisco!

Panel discussion at a recent Wikipedia & Journalism event.

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts in the San Francisco Bay Area will gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas. We have two brief presentations lined up for our kickoff event in downtown San Francisco:

• The Nueva Upper School recently hosted the first ever high school Wikipedia edit-a-thon. We will hear what interests them about Wikipedia, what they have learned so far, and what they hope to achieve.
• Photojournalist Kris Schreier Lyseggen, author of The Women of San Quentin: The Soul Murder of Transgender Women in Male Prisons, will tell us about her work and how she researched the topic.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. We will have beverages and light snacks.

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on this point.

For further details, see here: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, April 2016

We hope to see you -- and until then, happy editing! - Pete, Ben & Wayne

Same users

Hi Binksternet. After WickedDreamMusic has been warned on its user's talk page, returned as new account Drumtoad59 to insert "Kiyanu Kim" again, and alternate account Korpuskripsi created Draft:Kiyanu Kim in March. Perhaps there is still reason to create a SPI case though, especially since he's been up to this before. 123.136.107.166 (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

To me, it looks like Kiyanu Kim has been validated as a named writer of the song "Wrecking Ball". I don't think we need a sockpuppet investigation—yet. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

wth ?

Did you just revert a comment I made on Janis' talk page ? By what right did you do that ? It is NOT "vandalism" and NOT your right to just remove things you may not agree with. What the heck do you think you are doing ?

And yeah, I was there. You were not. What I said can be corroborated, although most of us veterans prefer to keep a low profile, due to self-importants bigots such as yourself.

Sorry, but I am pissed. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed your comments because they looked like they were not constructive, not working to improve the article. You appeared to be using the talk page as a forum. Binksternet (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Mmm. Not really, but I can see why you might think that. But in fact ...

The article makes several ridiculous claims. I was looking at the talk page and someone else remarked on the same thing. No, Janis was not "multi-instrumental". All you will ever see her play is the tambourine :-) She was a singer. I might have once seen a photo of her with a guitar but she certainly did not play it well enough to perform. That is one claim that is ridiculous. And the "dancer and painter" stuff, jeeze. She took art classes in high school. So did almost everybody on the planet.

I guess I morphed into annoyance at the whole "Oooh ! Drugs is bad ! they ruined so many lives !" schtick. This is all written by people who've never dropped doodly. Almost everyone in SF at that time was doing anything we could get our hands on. "What's this ? oh yeah ?" gulp. Down it goes, worry about what it was later. Smack was a little less popular because of two things - needle fear (that's me) and the perception that psychedelics were somewhat classier. But it was by no means uncommon.

The fact that just about everybody was doing some sort of drugs (I hate the word "drugs" also, it has connotations that are not really in the spirit of the thing) means that all the emphasis in this article is misplaced. It's also annoyng because it is so selective. Does the article about John Cippolina go to great lengths to mention every time he picked up a cigarette ? "And when he returned from the trip to Safeway, he lit up a cigarette. His friends were all worried about him and scheduled and intervention but ..."

Or how about Cass Elliot ? "Upon returning from the show, she went into the kitchen and had a big slice of cake."

The obsession with "drugs" is retro-history. It isn't what she was about, it's not really material to her life story, it's blown entirely out of proportion by a bunch of ernest do-gooders fifty years later who don't have a clue.

I'm a Marin native. I'm the right age. Lived in the Haight, scored on Telegraph, screamed for Mario Savio. I lived down the creek from Janis. I never knew her better than "hey there ! how's it going !" but I do know lots of other musicians - many hung out / lived in Marin. Lion's Share, Euphoria, Pepperland, Uncle Charlie's, the elephant park in Sleazalito, the place was swamped in live music. The drugs were the music, or deeply entwined. You can't separate them the way people try to do now. You can check the record, all the musicians say the same thing.

So, that's all personal opinion, whatever. It can't go in the article. But that was the talk page. If you had ever seen Janis sing, you'd understand that this page really is crap. It doesn't describe her at all. I fact, it understands her about as well as her Port Arthur high school classmates.

The article is a box. But what San Francisco was about, at that time, was breaking out of boxes. It's just wrong. But Janis would laugh at it, so what can you do ? :-)

Go ahead, leave it reverted, I mistakenly thought someone somewhere might open their mind a little. But wikipedia really isn't about truth, is it ? Just another box. A different kind of cardboard, a different color, but a box all the same. Sorry for being upset with you, the world is what it is. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You contradict yourself when you say it was not about the drugs yet the drugs were deeply intertwined with the San Francisco music scene of the 60s. At any rate, Wikipedia is boxed in by the "pillar" of WP:Verifiability, which says its "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." You would need to find an authoritative source saying that Janis was not part of the drug culture. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't contradict myself. People breathe to live, but do we need to remark on that three times every sentence ? "Winston Churchill was born August 3, 1886. He inhaled first at 11:03 a.m. Then he exhaled. On his way to first grade, he breathed 487 times .." I don't object to the mention of smack, it's the emphasis which is wrong.

But I managed to force myself through the entire article. It's really bad, even by strictly wikipedian standards. Want to talk about it here or adjourn back to the Janis page ? 210.22.142.82 (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The Janis page, please. More interested parties there. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay le, tossed a few noodles at the wall to get started. Grazie for your patience. Why I am doing this I have no idea but oh well ... 210.22.142.82 (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You might take a quick look here, btw. It's not boring -- looking around a little I can see that the Janis page can easily become a nest of rattlesnakes. Lots of people now using her for their own ends :(

But this is pretty funny, and exactly as I remember things ... you might enjoy it.

http://www.popmatters.com/article/bandmate-recalls-janis-joplins-big-appetite-in-tv-documentary/

== This also is well-written, perhaps it can better illuminate the subject :

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/07/lsd-drugs-summer-of-love-sixties

As a Haight veteran, I'd say this article is spot-on. Janis was a part of this. The current "oh poor girl who never got over being rejected in high school so she took refuge in evil heroin" plot is *shit*. It's just not true. We all had serious hangups. Every trip to the mailbox could offer you your death warrant. Janis had more problems than many ... but the modern attempt to stuff all of Haight-Ashbury into today's creepy avaricious Gopher Prairie mindset is just *wrong*.

We LIKED drugs. They were FUN. Janis didn't "relapse", she said, "Hmm, nothing to do for a few hours, got time to shoot up." Pump up the volume !

Hey, you wanted authoritative references :)210.22.142.82 (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sicilian IPs

Looks like he's back: 87.10.100.13 (talk · contribs · logs) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. That's him, alright. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked two weeks, as he's coming off a one week block, for long term disruptive editing. The disruption on Don Costa has been ongoing since, I think, 12 March and continued after a one week protection so I'll protect the page for a month. Ping me if anything else crops up. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Partial track listings in song infoboxes – thanks

Binksternet, thank you for undoing all those recent additions to Beatles song articles. I'd taken on much of A Gangsta's similar edits a couple of months back but just didn't have the stamina/interest this time around(!). As much as I find the preceding-and-subsequent track info too trivial for an infobox, to be fair to both editors, Template:Infobox song does allow for it as an option to the full album track lists (which have now been deleted, unfortunately). It might be an idea for us to fix the template instructions, because it seems that details regarding both options need to be revisited. Mind you, that's assuming the majority of editors do agree that the partial lists should be avoid, of course – I don't know whether that's necessarily the case. JG66 (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Good points. I hope that the general less-is-more attitude at the music project infobox discussions will prevail this this, since this kind of partial track listing is quite trivial. Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Makossa

I've noticed that you've been reverting changes made to this article by a new account that you link to the Carribean Music Vandal. I'm not here to defend the general actions of that person. But in this particular case, the new account may have gotten it right.

For many years, the Makossa article did not have an infobox. Instead, the development of the style was set forth in the article text itself. That discussion identified several "source" genres, and the identified sources were the ones that the new account now wishes to add to the infobox. For some reason, this listing of source genres was removed from the article in late 2013 by an IP address that added unrelated material to the same paragraph (thus leading me to wonder whether the removal was intentional).

On April 26, 2015 a different IP address added the article's infobox. That IP address was not an accomplished editor, and it took a great many edits to get the infobox into place. The editor apparently started by cut-and-pasting the infobox from the article on Soca, because for a while the Makossa article's infobox actually had the title "Soca" and listed its origin as Trinidad. More to the point, it was this series of amateurish edits that added the current list of source genres to the Makossa infobox.

Everything I've ever read about makossa describes it as being an electrified version of a traditional dance rhythm. The article originally identified this rhythm as ambasse bey, and so I think that the new account is correct in wanting to add this link to the Stylistic Origins field. I'm not sold on "jazz" as a stylistic origin, but this too was one of the sources that originally appeared in the article pre-2013. As for Afrobeat and disco, makossa predates both of them and the new account is correct in wanting to remove them from the infobox.

Again, I'm not here to defend the general actions of the Carribean Music Vandal. But, if only just this once, he's got it right. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

All of the changes this guy introduced were unreferenced, which is a big problem with WP:Verifiability, given his penchant for original research—putting his own opinions into the encyclopedia. What would be great is if the article could be developed based on more published sources. That's why I have rolled the text back to the condition existing before the Caribbean music vandal started adding stuff. I'm sure there are musicologists who have shed light on the topic; it is they who ought to be given a voice. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, both with the need for references and the rollback to the much earlier version of the article. I'll start looking through my own books over the next few days, but I'm not confident that I'll find much. African popular music in the '50s and '60s was never well-documented at the time it was being created (academics were still focused on traditional musics) and much of what's out there today is culled from the oft-hazy memories of a few people looking back over the decades. Still, there might be something useful and I'll see what I can find. Thanks for taking an interest in this. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A quick search of Google shows some brief mentions in many music books but there's a bit more detail in John Collins' book West African Pop Roots, pages 153–4. Maybe there are a couple more like this. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. The Collins text is one of the books that I have on my shelf and, you're right, it is a useful start. I did some on-line checking myself and found that, oddly enough, the Spanish version of Google Books has quite a lot of sources. I'm confident that I can cobble together a well-referenced history of the genre. I'll be drafting it off-wiki and, in the meantime, will be watching the Makossa article to see if CMV will leave it as is (if only for the near future). NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Highlife

The reason I'm here today is to talk about two things: the fact that you wrote that you would block my user account if I so-called "vandalized" the Highlife page on Wikipedia. Well, I wasn't vandalizing the Highlife page and in fact I was going to put a source up to show all that would visit the page that my edits were, in fact, utile. So, I'm sure you want the best for Wikipedia and I just hope you could let this go and just leave the edits, which by the way, are NOT VANDALISM, and everybody's happy. If not, well, I tried. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterrice2000 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

For many years now you have been writing about Caribbean music in Wikipedia, but usually with no cited sources, or in some cases with poor sources. If you want your edits to stick you must cite reliable sources such as books by musicologists. Can you tell me what books have good information on Highlife music? If you cannot, then you have no business editing the page. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Reliable Sources for Portrayals of East Asians in Hollywood

Sorry for the late reply since this was back in Dec 2012, I have learned to cite sources that are well studied and are reliable now versus obscure sources. Icebrotherhood 16:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Rona Ambrose a "Prominent feminist"?

Pls see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Rona Ambrose--Moxy (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Friend from Sicily

Is this 87.16.103.203 (talk · contribs · logs) our friend from Sicily? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's him. Same interest in Super Session. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, he's block evading so another two weeks block for him. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Now at 79.19.48.8 (talk · contribs · logs). <sigh> --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I've applied pending changes to Canadian-American Records for a month so see if that discourages him when he realises that his edits are not appearing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the guy is persistent, and he's uncommunicative. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ray of Light 20 million/16 million

Please help me in stopping Special:Contributions/Navyiconer, continuously changing long standing consensus of Talk:Ray of Light that it sold 16 million. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 19:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe the issue is persisting in List of best-selling albums, Madonna albums discography as well. Would you mind in taking a look also? I tried many times explaining about the consensus, but the user is displaying battleground mentality and blindly reverting. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for COI review

I'm impressed with your accomplishments in the music genre and fairness in AfD. We've recently conversed on the Postmodern Jukebox topic, where I have no COI. The problem there is that I was being hounded about a paid work in a COIN, unfortunately, I'm not allowed to have a separate account for volunteer work like the PMJ article.

Concerning the paid work in article space (GoDigital Media Group), it is music related and I've drafted a replacement article.User:009o9/Draft GDMG A friend of the hounding editor has given my edit request two reviews, but they are circular i.e., remove all the press releases -- and then -- look at the press releases I've found. I'm not asking you to intercede in the sh{}tstorm, I'd just just like to get an outside POV check from somebody that is interested in the genre.

There are a couple of confusing issues:

1. GoDigital Media Group (GDMG) and GoDigital are separate but related entities. Some source authors tend to shorten the GDMG entity to GoDigital in their articles. Conversely, referring to GoDigital does not always indicate the speaker is referencing the parent company GDMG.
2. The only reason the GDMG article exists is because an article about ContentBridge was AfD'd to a merge to the parent holding company article.

If you don't want to respond on the draft's talk page, and decide to review, you could ping me from here. I'll make corrections and resubmit the edit request in a couple of days -- seeking a neutral editor and leave you out of the discussion. Thanks! 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 19:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series on May 25

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. We will have beverages and light snacks.

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on this point.

For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, May 2016

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben Creasy, and Checkingfax via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC) | Subscribe/Unsubscribe to the SF Meetups notice.

skate punk

Can you watch the skate punk article? I also am doing it but an IP keeps messing up the article and won't stop. EuropeanSwedenAmerican2222 (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

self-promo

Hi Binkster: Friendly ComAdmin here... could you look at User:Sean DeBlasa and see if you think it's a promotional page or a user page? Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yeah... That stuff is totally self-promotion. I blanked the page. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi again! I found one more from him uploading 27 photos of himself taken by 27 photographers. I think he might have an MFA degree. Check out the article on Jesse Waugh. Thanks for your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you Ok seriously

Who is he? Is he the creator of Wikipedia? From the reports I got he is about the only one I've gotten countless reports on concerning to music. I listen to the music so I know what instruments are used, some things are common knowledge and don't need sources all the time. He must be on this 24/7 if he is he got real serious paranoid issues to report someone who isn't even a member. I wonder if he gets report maybe those who are part of this should be report him see how he likes it. I've been threatened many times in my own opinions, saying the next time I edit a page I would be blocked. Also some edits were mistakes such as talk pages those were mistakes as I was trying to edit even my own section. And for your info Binksterent, I get my info based on the personnel and compare them with other albums of the same genre. So calm down you don't own this website stop being so Cocky thanks. I'm sure he is going to report my comment about him. Give one person authority they think they own every page. ISSUES GET HELP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.89.236 (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a rule called WP:No original research which says that your own personal analysis of the music is not enough. The facts must be published in a verifiable form, from a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

"""original research"""

There was NO research, original or otherwise, in my edits to those Chumbawamba articles. All I did was put the full title of the album in there, as stated on The Boy Bands Have Won. Heepman1997 (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Collect essay; second bite at the cherry

You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Carouselambra

That IP vandal from New Jersey is back again, adding false information. The page needs to be reprotected. 138.0.174.22 (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

World Wide Web

Hello, Binksternet! I hope you are well. There seems to be a bit of controversy going on on the World Wide Web page. I have intervened and made my findings clear, but I would be very grateful if you would take a look and give your opinion. The problem concerns who invented the Web. It's widely vaunted as being Tim Berners-Lee, which I believe to be true, but another editor is insistant that what is termed Berners Lee's "first collaborator" on the project, Robert Cailliau, is actually co-inventor. The links here are from CERN, a respected scientific institute, where the World Wide Web was invented - http://home.cern/topics/birth-web and http://press.cern/press-releases/2009/03/cern-launches-new-youth-site-webs-20th-anniversary

Your input would be greatly appreciated!

(Etheldavis (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC))

Hello again! The situation appears to have cleared itself for the moment. Sorry to have trouble you.

(Etheldavis (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC))

MfD nomination of Draft:Dina Rae

Draft:Dina Rae, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dina Rae and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Dina Rae during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Red (Taylor Swift song), you may be blocked from editing.

The source you listed says the song "covers a bizarre number of bases" also calling the song "twangy" and saying it has "Top 40 effects" while the sources I have listed specifically say the song is Country. You stated that I make changes without adding a sources or a consensus while it is actually the opposite. You started changing the genre, unnecessary, and when undoing my edits you just say "genre warring" while that is exactly what you are doing yourself. Please refrain from doing this again. Bjork138 (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

World Wide Web

Hello, Binkerstenet!

More problems at the World Wide Web page as the edit protection has been removed and the editor from before has immediately returned - with uncited and inaccurate reversions. I have contacted the admin who removed the "pp sock", but he/she appears to be on holiday until 30th May. I would be grateful if you would consider reinstating page protection for a time.

(Etheldavis (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC))

I have read through the World Wide Web Talk Page conversation with the editor, I was no to up-to-date with it all, and his/her attitude is actually rather personal and I find it a bit intimidating. He/she most certainly does not assume "good faith" on my part.

(Etheldavis (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC))

This is relevant to the subject causing problems on the World Wide Web article page. There has never been an assertion by Robert Cailliau that he "co-invented the web" - the inaccurate assertion stems from various on-line articles. tim Berners-Lee, WWW. inventor addresses the topic here:

"Some commentators suggest that Robert co-invented the WWW. To set this straight, he did not invent it. It wasn't his idea. He did not write the specifications for UDIs (later to be URLs, then URIs), or for HTML, the hypertext language, nor HTTP, the protocol, or the code of the original implementation. More than a year after my original proposal (March 1989), while I was working on the code, he wrote a proposal to CERN proposing some staff be allocated to the project. This was a brave thing to do, as CERN was always chronically short of manpower for the huge challenges it had taken on. So Robert put himself out there to claim that effort on WWW was worth it."

https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/FAQ.html (scroll down to section "Robert Cailliau's Role")

(Etheldavis (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC))

Special:Contributions/Navyiconer

Can we seriously do something about this user? Goes on incrementing album sales in pages with pretty poor choice of sources and goes against consensus continuously. Every warning and explanations are removed from the user's talk page so its not that this bugger does not read it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey Bink, I don't think you saw my message here. The editor is using gross, foul language now in its talk page. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 21:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That person got a 72-hour block, so perhaps that will instill some objectivity. I would be more optimistic if some talk page activity were present. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

IP

Are you sure this is a sock? And if so, can you file a report? Chase (talk | contributions) 18:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, may I ask what you're doing reverting my edits across various pages such as Ignition (Remix)? Chase (talk | contributions) 18:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this IP is block evasion by User:Giubbotto non ortodosso, as are all IPs from that area of Italy engaged in genre warring at Chris Brown music articles.

I am not trying to revert you; instead I'm trying to roll back the articles to a time prior to disruption by the sock. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Well on Ignition (Remix) you actually reverted back to the IP, reverting my revert. I'd fix it, but I'm at 3RR there. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

About the warning for Deftones

This is not edit warring. Art rock did not have a single correct citation and I will keep removing unsourced information. Removing unsourced information from articles does not need consensus: WP:V, WP:CS, WP:NPOV, WP:Truth.

And reverting my fixes numerous times is indeed an edit war. I assume the edit war is because of Deftones fans' biased point of view. Anyhow, I will keep doing what I believe is legit and correct according to all WP guidelines. Right now, alt metal, nu metal, exp rock and even art metal are sourced much stronger than art rock, with zero (or one) reliable soure backing it. If you are a Deftones fan and you are keen to add art rock, please consider finding multiple sources for that genre (WP:RSUW,WP:Truth) before engaging in edit wars and using all the power at your disposal to bully others. Thanks. Solino_{the Wolf} 10:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You have misidentified me as a fan of the band. I'm not. Instead, I look at published sources to get a sense of their genre. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/River Stumpf - While the puppet may be linked to River Stumpf I may have jumped the gun in reporting prior to more blatant edits. Thanks for taking the time to add your views! Garchy (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

please i need help !

can you help me to fix the references error on the article i just created , please thanks in advance Maria lopps (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC) all the sources that i provide on this article are independent reliable sources with a significant coverage , newspapers and more ,,, please help me to fix the link Maria lopps (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Bungle (album)

Care to explain how and why you're interpreting the source on the talk page? When reverting the edit, you say it's because the source calls the album "unclassifiable," I'm assuming because in the last paragraph it describes the band's overall direction over three albums (not the sound on any one particular album, which I'd add is not the same as band genres or single album genres) as unclassifiable. However, even if we were to accept your interpretation of the source is correct, instead of removing the genre entirely or writing "unclassifiable," in the info box, you revert it back to funk metal, when ska, carnival music, and free jazz are also sourced. It's not an inscrutable article, everything in it is pretty clearly written, so I feel you should at least make your case on the talk page and get some consensus before wantonly removing genres. 70.29.6.94 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I would follow AllMusic's review which says that the album has no overall genre. Instead, the various songs wander all over the genre map. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case, we should probably do away with the genre entirely (including funk metal,) and just describe the various styles it explores in the body of the article. (When properly cited of course.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.55.48.34 (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, no genre at all, for the album overall, but widely ranging song genres. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Might want to take a look at this too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulholland_Drive_(film) Thanks for the help on Lost Highway. The genres for this film aren't properly sourced either, and it could probably use someone to hammer it down to just one. 142.55.48.34 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Miles in the Sky

I reverted your edit to Miles Davis. Most sources seem to view Miles in the Sky as part of the series of albums with Davis' post-bop quintet (the album didn't electric instruments on all its tracks) while citing In a Silent Way instead as the period's beginning (Greg Tate in Vibe, Sean Street in this book, the Freeman book, and Christgau in the Village Voice article cited currently cited in the lead, to name a few); AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine said Miles in the Sky "presaged Davis' next stylistic turn" ([4]). Dan56 (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Some advice again please

Hey Bink, how would one best deal with this guy? I'm getting tired of reverting and warning him and think he is probably a sock. Any advice would be appreciated. Cheers. Robvanvee 17:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This time its a poet....

Greetings Bink: Thanking you ever so much for your reviews of other interesting articles found through Commons photo sorting processes, could you take a look at Tapan Kumar Pradhan? It seems a bit long on personal-ism and a bit short on references. Incidentally most of the photos are copyvios and the photo uploaders (more than one) are editing the page too. What a surprise. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have redirected all the poems to the biography of the poet, who is perhaps just barely notable. His individual poems are not, however, the subject of in-depth discussion in secondary sources. I've also greatly trimmed the biography. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dina Rae.
Message added 19:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Another user has posted a comment there for you. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, Wednesday, June 29

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We make sure to allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages and light snacks. We will also have:

• A brief report on Pride edit-a-thon recently held at the San Francisco Publice Library, coordinated by Merrilee:

  What topics might we cover in a follow up?

  Find out more about resources your public library provides to help with editing (hint, it's more than just books!)

  Special announcement (secret for now but come and find out more!)

• Join in on an in person Wikidojo!

  Are you curious how your peers approach writing a Wikipedia article? This exercise, pioneered by Wikipedians Nikola Kalchev and Vassia Atanassova in 2015 and conducted in many places around the world, will help us all - from first-time wiki users to veteran Wikipedians - share ideas, while building an article together. If you have ideas (relating to Bay Area history, ideally) about a new article we could build (stubs and short existing articles are fine), please submit them ahead of time to coordinator Pete Forsyth. (User talk page or email is fine.)

  Announcements and impromptu topics are welcome, too!

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict.

For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, June 2016

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Fred Wolf

Can you fix the Fred Wolf article on Wikipedia, please? Some of the shows mentioned I don't even remember him working on. 71.95.50.94 (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

X-Raided albums

Please stop reversing my edits on these albums. You are removing tons of information I spent hours over the past few months collecting in order to expand these articles. I'm not sure what your interest/concern is, but if your concern with my edits is that they are "unsourced", please be aware that I have sources for everything posted and I plan to go back through and update with footnotes this coming weekend. I work almost 80 hours a week so my Wiki research and editing is done on the weekends, and adding the source information to these articles will take a lot of time. Actually, this is only the first part of a process to expand ALL the X-Raided articles, hopefully by the end of the summer. So there will be more information added to these and his other albums in the coming weeks. You are obviously not familiar with the artist, or you would know that the things I posted are not "controversial" or "defamatory." I also edit from dynamic IP addresses so if you "block" any of the IPs I edit from you're only going to be blocking random people that use the IP next time it's dynamically assigned, you won't actually be blocking me. Please let me complete this process in my due time. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B103:19FE:217:F2FF:FEFD:1421 (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The controversial stuff cannot be re-inserted without a solid reference, per WP:BLP. It doesn't matter how many IP addresses you use; I will continue to remove it until BLP is satisfied. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You're an idiot. There is no "controversial stuff." Most of what I've added is "common knowledge" among people that know anything about the artist, but there are still sources available for it. You are deleting entire articles including tracklist and personnel information culled from the album liner notes. This is not controversial information, speculation, or unsourced. I will continue to revert your removals of the information, and add my sources as my time allows. If you want to block IPs, feel free, but you will only be blocking random people, not me. Thanks for making my work much harder. Instead of picking petty battles with people genuinely trying to improve and make Wikipedia more informative for people, why don't you pick a subject that you are interested in, research it, and contribute yourself? And before you say anything about sources, please actually read what I posted above. You people with these little WikiBots that arbitrarily remove articles and information are a disease to Wikipedia. What started as an effort to reduce vandalism has turned into a power-play by the people abusing them. I have never vandalized any article on Wiki, yet I constantly have edits rejected and articles removed by people like you. If attempting to enforce personal interpretation of arbitrary rules on a selective basis on someone who is obviously trying to make information more accessible to people and help the growth of Wiki on the whole is the only way you can feel good about yourself, then I pity you. Look, you were wrong this time. It's ok to admit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B103:19FE:217:F2FF:FEFD:1421 (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not worried about what you think of me. The tracklists I'm deleting have no support in the literature – there's nothing published about them at all, and they aren't available for purchase. The text I'm deleting is full of conjecture and controversy, based apparently on original research or very poor sources such as self-published webpages. You'll notice that I fleshed out the reference for Vibe magazine from August 1998, including a URL. That source shows the album was released in 1998, not 1999. There is no evidence to support a "Collector's Edition" of that album. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I see Ancient Aliens is still called a documentary in the lead

The discussion several years ago[5] doesn't seem to have had an impact. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

How's this? Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, much better. For some reason the article wasn't on my watchlist so I missed your edit. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyedit issue

Hello.

I'm extremely surprised about your comment on my edit on Justin Bieber's article "I'll Show You", since the beginning here on Wikipedia, the thing I do the most is to help increase the pages (you can check them out), all of my contributions are made to help the articles to grow and receive a good article nomination. What I perceived that you thought it was a copyright violation was only some terms used by critics as "sheets of cascading synths" and "fat bass, snapping", but none of them are there without a source and maybe it lacked only the quotation marks, but it's all sourced and they are minimal issues not an issue to be blocked or infringe any copyright. I believe that you got me wrong, because my mission here is only helping the articles to grow, without violation. You can see that many of my contributions were nominated for good article status, therefore I would never violate anything. This was very minimum and it was taken out of proportion.

Best regards, FanofPopMusic (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If you use the source's unique wording without naming the source explicitly in the text – each time the wording is employed – then you are violating the copyright rules. That's why I pointed you to the guideline. Writing GA-class articles does not allow one to bypass the rules. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

McCarthyism

You may want to stop by the article when you get a chance. It's been subjected to extensive editing, some of which concerns me. Would like to get your opinion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have examined both versions and responded on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

User:First Lord of Downing Street

Does his/her edits remind you of Deeego? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the pattern. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Joe Eszterhas article

My Name is Janie Hubert. I received a message from you regarding an edit I did on the Joe Eszterhas article.

As to the Joe Eszterhas article, I am the editor of the official website for Joe Eszterhas and I am working closely with him. We have been reviewing the information listed on Joe's article. We have found a number of errors along with inconsistencies, and we are in the process of updating the information. All the information we are adding or changing has been confirmed either from available sources or from Mr. Eszterhas himself.

Any material we upload, we have all rights to. Please specify specifically what portion(s) of the page you see copywrite issues with.

The current Wikipedia page for Joe Eszterhas is incorrect and we are working alongside Mr. Eszterhas himself to update it.

Please restore our previous edits as soon as possible.

Thank you

Maryjanekathryn (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

So is there a PR fluff text file that he sends to all his media contacts? Because somebody used the same wording as you did (http://www.londonscreenwritersfestival.com/whats-on/sessions/everything-you-wanted-to-ask-about-screenwriting-but-never-dared-ask-with-joe-eszterhas), and it appears to be copyrighted by them, not you. I realize that they might have copied your PR puff piece verbatim, without crediting the source to you.

Even if you own the words, they are not neutral in tone. Wikipedia has a policy about WP:TONE which says that you cannot use such promotional wording to puff up a subject. Your work for Eszterhas will have to be less obviously promotional or it will be removed. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for all of this information. It is all very helpful, since I am new to Wikipedia and figuring it all out.

Any other advise you have as far as the best way to make this all work is much appreciated.

What we will do is request changes on the Joe Eszterhas talk page, and let other editors make the changes.

If you can keep an eye on all of this, that would be great, since you seem to be such a experienced editor.

Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryjanekathryn (talk • contribs) 18:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Maryjanekathryn: The easiest and best way to edit an article that you might have a conflict of interest, is to use edit requests on the article's talk page. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

In regards to your denial of genre change

To begin, I must remind you that Wikipedia is a free and open source of information that anyone can edit. To disregard this is to disregard the entire purpose of Wikipedia, regardless of alternative purpose. So your argument is that because I didn't provide any sources that I am for some reason not allowed to change the information on the site. This argument in fact is an argument that lacks support by itself. The reason for this is that the source doesn't need to prove that the song is a particular genre, but simply state it. I am able to prove that the song The Beautiful People is both Industrial Metal and Alternative Metal, and disprove the current argued genre Alternative Metal and Gothic Rock, but there simply lacks a section to be able to do that. So to chain this up, your logic is that you can provide a source that has no information to prove that a song is a certain subgenre, but you can't prove it yourself on the site. So because there is no other section to prove/disprove the genre, I will explain it here. The guitars give off a distinct electronic grinding sound, present in Industrial Metal with distinct drone based repetitive rifts also found in Industrial Metal, but with a bit more groove. It fits into the Alternative Metal catagory with the slight distortion present with the grinding industrial sound, and a slightly Funk Metal based chorus rift, present in Alternative Metal. The reason that the genre Gothic Rock does not apply to this song is because it has melodic, romantic, and soft elements that the song fails to deliver. In addition to this, I am calling you out on 2 things. The first is protecting something you don't know anything about, and even worse is you protecting something you don't know anything about, using guidelines instead of information. I am calling you out on this because you're blindly protecting something. The second is stacking a confliction that contains the second confliction, with that confliction. I am calling you out on this because you're just saying I did the same thing twice and expecting double the result (I also don't appreciate the dismissal of "assumption"). I appeal that I broke the route conflictions, but because no matter what the source I give, the page will accept it as long as it says that the song is what I changed the information to, and even if I gave one that explained it in depth, someone else could change it with a lesser source, and it would be accepted regardless. So I don't participate in this flawed mechanic. I await a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.167.232.114 (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. The Pop Matters source definitely lists the song as one of the ten best alt metal tunes of the 1990s, so the alt metal genre is supported there. The NME source definitely lists the song as one of the 20 best goth tunes, so the gothic rock genre is supported. Your own analysis of the guitar sound doesn't work here because Wikipedia has a hard-and-fast rule about editors not doing their own research, the rule called WP:No original research. Sorry. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Power Windows edit

You said that we should try to have a neutral outlook on different pages, and yes, I am a bit biased because I like Rush. But that's not why I edited the page. The Rolling Stone article giving Power Windows 2.5/5 isn't valid anymore, at least not for me. The source provided leads to a dead page saying "Sorry for the inconvenience, this page could not be loaded." That's why I think it was fair that I removed the rating (I forgot to remove the source though) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sviskebisk (talk • contribs) 19:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia still counts the source as valid even if Rolling Stone doesn't host the review anymore. There's a guideline at WP:KDL (Keep Dead Links) that tells us we should not remove text supported by links that are no longer working.

Furthermore, there's a pretty easy way to see what was on such links: go to the Wayback Machine at archive.org. I plugged in the dead url and got the following result: http://web.archive.org/web/20101222001032/http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/rush/albumguide. It shows that Power Windows did indeed get a 2.5 star rating. at least in 2010 when the page was archived.

I can understand that a fan of the album might wish to remove a poor rating, but the rating was notable, published by a major music periodical. It would violation Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy to remove it. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you help me get the story of how the video was done for free

I recruited 150 crew members and 20 companies to help. I am not looking for glory for myself. I'm 71 with Muscular Dystrophy and want to get the story out. I was a TV engineer at the beginning of my career and promised myself to treat crew fairly.mplease help me. Hgmalley@sbcglobal.net Hgmalley (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You need to find a newspaper or magazine that wants to run your story. They can interview you and other crew members and tell how it all came together. Since the old Life magazine was involved, Time magazine should be your first choice. Time has access to Life archival photos.

Wikipedia cannot be your first place of publication, according to the guideline at WP:NOTESSAY.

Good luck! Binksternet (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Mirror mirror!

I found [6] that on the way to checking a pile of copyvios. It looks like the user has copied a bio from another page onto a sandbox page. I'm concerned about search engines. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a student in school, playing around with editing. I have blanked the user page and the sandbox per WP:NOT, and I will keep an eye on this kid. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we revise an edit you did?

Hello, Binsternet I have a question about one point on the edit you did on the Robert Perless page. It's about the highly unusual and broadly written-about house and studio complex that he literally built. This is germane to his work as a sculptor in metal, because he built the house in metal, which is extremely unusual. I know that my contributing to his bio is considered COI, but I am knowledgeable about architecture. Is there a way we can re-edit his entry?

You wrote, "In 1978 after working in cramped quarters in New York City, The Perlesses built a house with attached sculpture studio in Greenwich, Connecticut."

What is actually the case is, "In 1978, Perless began literally to construct an all-metal house and studio complex with 25' ceilings in Greenwich, Connecticut so that he could freely construct and exhibit his work. It has been widely published."

In addition to the NY times citation I added, here are five others:

I hope that you will reconsider and change this one entry. Thank you so much for your help.

BTW, Robert has sent in the correct forms for the inclusion of other work to the Gallery. It would be important to actually show more of a sculptor's work on their page. Don't you agree?

Thanks,

Eperless (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

References

I can see a couple of online sources that support your assertion, one published in the New York Times Magazine in 1984 which says the architect was John Ciardullo, and a brochure hosted online by Ciardullo. I will rewrite the bit. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Binksternet, you did not get the idea correctly. Robert built the entire house. He did not just cut the panels. I have made the corrections. Please do not take this out for COI. You just did not get it right. Actually, we collaborated with John on the design of the house. robert literally built everything in metal — the steel, the exterior, and the sculptural railings. I am also adding the other references.

I hope that's okay, and we can just move on.

Eperless (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

edit summary Tom Selleck

Hi, Could you explain your edit summary in this edit [7]? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I wrote, "Rv... Persistent POV changes by IPs in N.Ireland." What I was doing was reverting every questionable edit by a person using an IP address from Northern Ireland. I erred on the side of reverting this guy, because the other edits were pretty bad, and the person was getting tiresome. This particular change from "soldier" to "guardsman" and back to soldier again was not so terribly bad, but the word "guardsman" is rarely used in the US – very rarely. It's much more common to call someone a soldier, even if they are serving in a Guard unit. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess we now both think that the IP's edit was in good faith, rather than some kind of POV pushing.

I was thinking of deleting "soldier" because it seems redundant with the rest of the sentence. Would that be OK with you? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Link to REDIRECT prohibited

I understand that there was some kerfuffle at A Love So Beautiful, but I don't understand why a link in Nessun dorma to that REDIRECT should be prohibited. That's what REDIRECTs are for, no? I would appreciate you restoring that link in "Nessun dorma". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Abortion

Yes. I neglected the sources for the material in question. I've now added a number of them. Also, I deleted some unsourced material that had been lurking in the article. Doubtless there's more unsourced material there & it needs work. Badiacrushed (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like a lot of folks quote Waltke rather than a lot of folks coming to the same conclusion independently. Also, C. Everett Koop and some other evangelicals don't agree with Waltke, so I put that in. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

About my edits on David Irving's talk page

You have removed my edits on David Irving's talk page because it didn't meet some Wikipedia standard. Than I changed my edits to comply with said standards and put back the edited version. Than user Dmol removed that and you accused me of engaging in a edit war. I did everything in my power to address your complaints and even if my edits are still unacceptable I think it is not fair to accuse me of participating in a edit war. --Nekdolan (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Your first talk page contribution said "I am not proposing any changes. I just want to talk." Such talk is against WP:NOTAFORUM. However, your discussion was in any case aimed at removing the label "holocaust denier" from the Irving biography. So your changes which addressed NOTAFORUM were not really substantive changes – you still wanted to removed the label "holocaust denier." That label has been confirmed over and over again in countless talk page discussions, so the fact that you were bringing it up yet again was disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you believe that I have violated the three-revert rule? Or did I get a warning because somebody else at some point had raised this issue? As far as I can can tell I am the only who got a warning for (re)raising concerns regarding this issue. Why was I singled out? The last similar attempt was less than a year ago. Did that person also get a warning? --Nekdolan (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You are also misrepresenting of what I said in the talk page. I stated that the sources are missing or misinterpreted and therefore they should be expanded, and only if that can be done should we remove the label that is therefore unverifiable. I don't see how expanding existing conclusions is disruptive. Care to explain? Nekdolan (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you just an Oasis hater?

I love the band Oasis, do you just generally hate them, you removed both Oasis' cover of I am the Walrus, and Oasis' cover of Heroes by David Bowie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudeizawsom (talk • contribs) 05:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, he don't really wanna know, how your garden grows... Etc., etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.131.25 (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I asked you to look at WP:SONGCOVER. Have you done so? It says that unremarkable song covers are not to be listed. B-sides are not usually important enough to mention, nor are covers performed during concerts. Binksternet (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Ray of Light

Can i have your input regarding an user continuously disrupting the Ray of Light article by removing content from the lead here and accusing me of falsely adding that content? I tried explaining him/her about WP:LEAD but the user chose to ignore it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I raised a talk page discussion if you would like to comment. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

About this, sorry somehow I mistook you for the user Jeremiah here, and thought he was re-opening the discussion. My eyes are playing me today. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Late breaking invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, July 27 (Wednesday) - change of venue - tonight

Please join us in the Mission at Noisebridge (one time change of venue)!

We hope you can join us today, Wednesday, from 6 p.m. on, at our July Bay Area WikiSalon. This month only, we are going to be at Noisebridge, a hackerspace/makerspace 1.5 blocks from the 16th & Mission BART station (see the link for directions). Some of us will be working on the Wikipedia article on basic income. All info here. Some good news - we do not have to be as strict about advance RSVP at Noisebridge, so bring spontaneous guests! (Registering ahead of time is still helpful, as always, as it will help us plan ahead.)

Come and hang out, have some light snacks. Wi-Fi is available, so please bring your editing device if you plan to edit.

Also, Pete just published a writeup of the Wikidojo exercise we did last month. Your comments welcome, if he missed anything! http://wikistrategies.net/ghost-town-royals-wikidojo

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas. Mark you calendars now.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend.

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben Creasy, Stephen and Wayne | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thursday, August 4 San Diego Wiki-Dinner

Join us for an informal San Diego Wiki-Dinner meeting with visiting Wikipedians Rosiestep and Fuzheado, to get to know each other, and to help prepare for WikiConference North America in October 2016! --Pharos (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)