User talk:Binksternet/Archive51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Multiple IPs working together to vandalize Wikipedia

I saw this edit. We are obviously working on similar music articles to get rid of the incessant vandalism by IPs who never use edit summaries, revert each other and just create a mess of useless contradictory edits. It is still a mystery as to what exactly the goal is--to add WP:PROMO to the article--buried in bizarre vandalism? Or is this kids who are playing around? Any thoughts? Anyway, I came here because I was wondering how you were able to prove that the various IPs were collaborating or were the same person? I'd like to do similar detection of that.

If you prefer not to give away your techniques on Wiki, please feel free to send me an email. I know I have much to learn. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I made a page in userspace to help me track this guy: User:Binksternet/Kent_IPs. The block log is pretty extensive, so maybe I should advance that page to public space at WP:LTA.
Certainly I use the geolocate tool a lot. It's found at the bottom of a page showing an IP's contributions. It helps me put an identifier on an IP – a place where the disruption is based.
One way to investigate a suspicious IP address is to append a range modifier to its contributions list, and see what other neighboring IPs have been doing. For instance, you could take Special:Contributions/86.165.144.246 and add /21 at the end, to get Special:Contributions/86.165.144.246/21, which reveals another IP doing the same thing –Special:Contributions/86.165.144.48 back in August of last year. IP6 addresses (the longer ones with colon separaters) have different range parameters, with /64 showing the contributions of just one person, and smaller range numbers showing increasingly larger groups. That way, Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:1189:3800:B4BB:EBC8:90F0:116 is extended to Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:1189:3800:B4BB:EBC8:90F0:116/64, or more properly Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:1189:3800:0:0:0:0/64 with zeros in the last four positions.
Another way to look for suspicious IPs is to pore through the history of a frequently targeted article such as the album Slippery When Wet, which shows a lot of IPs from the same area. Binksternet (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Yes, I support moving that page to some public space related to vandalism, unless you suspect certain editors might object--I can't imagine who would or why. If you can think of a reason why, maybe ask first whether it would be a problem.
I saw a similar page like that about the vandals who mess with the Carpenters. MaterialScientists in some edit I saw referred to the vandal (or group) of vandals by some country, possibly the "Vietnam vandals" or something like that. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of that page. It would be nice to see all that kind of investigation in one place so I can use the information to help out.
Perhaps we could write a manual of steps that can be taken when we see one of these typical music vandals, like the Kent, the carpenters, or the vandals we see on Maroon 5 and other extremely popular bands. I have my own set of steps, but you and Materialscientist are way ahead of me in doing that efficiently and I want to get better at it.
When I go to one of those articles and see 10 edits from 5 different IPs in 24 hours--none with edit summaries--it looks very fishy, and I want to do something to reduce the disruption. But it seems that no matter how much we do, they come right back and do it all over again within a day or two. It often looks like a lot of work to figure out if there is anything worth saving, whether some is promo, what is being hidden and buried in the add/revert cycles by the multiple IPs. I suspect vandals (and PROMO) are deliberately making it more difficult to identify inappropriate edits and avoid getting warned or blocked by using multiple IPs.
I'm hoping we can come up with a manual or process than makes it easy to divide, reduce, and coordinate the work for this particular type of vandal.
I'll start trying to use the method you have been using once I have figured it out. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey that guy you informed to stop changing genres is making speculative unsourced edits here on this. The user 144.178.8.74/Djtechno95 is repeatably changing this edit to include "facts" that weren't in the actual episode. I noticed you told the first one to knock it off and apparently he didn't listen and is using both accounts to edit articles. I know it's kind of a small thing but they never communicate why they're changing it. It feels like harassment. 96.74.105.129 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Problem with titles

Hello Binksternet!

Recently, you left a comment on my talk page in regards to Jessica Parker Kennedy being referred to as a model in her Wikipedia article. You noted that me calling her a model in her article is reflective of my own opinions and may not align with other perspectives. However, I assure you, I had no intention in expressing my own opinions in this statement. It was a plain fact which I had contributed based on external sources. If you would like to know why sources refer to Kennedy as a model, please contact me and I will provide. Unless you find a source which directly refers to Kennedy as NOT being a model, I suggest we keep this title in her article as it is indeed the truth and nothing but fact.

I thank you for your concern over this topic.

Kind regards,

Wikipedia Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:74E7:E00:DCE1:1FE5:1B77:FCF5 (talk • contribs)

No, that's not how this works. If something in the encyclopedia is challenged, it stays out until someone can prove it. The WP:BURDEN of proof is on you, not others. Binksternet (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Correcting your musical tuning edit

Hi there, just letting you know that I have corrected your edit from two years ago which claimed that the A=432 tuning doesn't line up with the Schiller Institute's preference for C=256. It does, as long as Pythagorean tuning is used (well, or Maria Renold's Scale of 12 Fifths, which is a more recent development of it). Esn (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Strange IP edit

Can you take a look at a strange edit by an IP that I explain here:

User_talk:167.21.142.28#Strange_edit_at_Jada_Pinkett_Smith

Any other page lurkers, I am equally interested in your thoughts on what I said about the edit there. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Me!

Hi @Andrzejbanas: In Heavy article, it says "the track is allegedly titled “ME!” and features Urie. It is filed under “Alternative & Punk”, which is far cry from Swift’s country and pop style." But I'm not sure if it's explicitly being called them. 2402:1980:241:DB1D:2F7C:2056:831B:5A02 (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Sorry, posted wrong talk page. Now resolved. 2402:1980:8256:5B0E:8293:6C70:7F9A:555 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The Police

I never realised that a group's nationality had to be sourced as well – no hard feelings, thanks for making the change. Although it might be difficult to find sources calling them an "English" or "British" band either... Richard3120 (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your objectivity and largesse. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

IPs who use no edit summary; IPs who add, revert; add, revert.

Question about this is here: User_talk:60.52.68.26#Edit_Summaries. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Your recent changes defending Neo Nazi changes to Albert Speer

I came across the article on Albert Speer and saw that you reverted a correction to an edit without reading the article history. If you read the talk page I highly suspect you would not have reverted it.

I highly suggest you read the following before agreeing to make edits for other users in the future.

https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/b7ttlh/can_we_please_discuss_the_problem_with_admins/

The article has been involved in an edit war because a Nazi sympathizer admin keeps repeatedly trying to smear Germans who opposed Hitler. Speer wrote several books about working with Hitler and was recorded repeatedly opposing the other Nazis around him, including stopping trains to death camps, and trying to hire women instead of using slave laborers. Speer spent decades assisting historians with locating records and proof of the holocaust or other incidents during the War, as he was an inside expert in how the system worked.

The wikipedia admin in question has repeatedly removed mentions of Speer's work to prove the holocaust, as well as Speer's work to warn people of right wing extremists. He has tried to smear Speer so that his post war work against right wing extremists will be ignored. The kind of behavior Speer warned about is exactly the behavior being used by the alt right to spread propaganda, and so his works are being removed by members with ties to the alt right.

I know your actions are probably unintentional, but your revision is assisting right wing nuts who see Speer as a traitor to the right.

Please report whatever member requested you defend these smears. I highly doubt that you would approve of smearing opponents of Hitler if you were aware of what you were being asked to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B01C:2427:186F:B1D0:2426:6261 (talk • contribs)

You have made some wrong assumptions about me and my motives. I have been looking at your posts Tailless aircraft, Inertia coupling, Korematsu v. United States and Internment of Japanese Americans, as well as examples of your thinking at Talk:Albert Speer, and I have noticed that you don't ever cite WP:Reliable sources. Instead, you argue a point of view without sharing your sources, except where you encourage me to look at a reddit discussion in the post above, which I will never do, as there is nothing that we could take from such a discussion for use on Wikipedia. What you should be doing is reading the best quality books and scholarly journals about the various topics that interest you, and citing those sources in your arguments. If you don't cite a respectable source, your editing work will be reverted, as in every example I gave above. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
First off, the IP addresses are different on those posts. The addresses have been removed for some reason to cause confusion. Just as the complaints against the admin were removed. Would an admin do something like that if they were innocent and had nothing to hide?
Secondly, the reddit link includes wikipedia records as proof. The admin was caught claiming to be a nazi hunter but was instead removing stories of Germans who opposed Hitler.
Thirdly, it took me about 10 seconds to see that the claims in those articles were already sourced, especially since he stated that. All I had to do was hit F3. For instance, there are multiple mentions of General DeWitt's leadership already cited in the Internment article. In fact, there is an entire article on him and his actions as well.
Fourthly, if you care about sources then why have you not taken offense to K.E.Coffman using a source that claims TO MIND READ as the primary source for the Speer article? Did you not look at the talk page to see what the complaints were?
Lastly, consider what this would look like to the media and what it could do to your reputation. You are on here defending a suspected neo nazi and defending a General known for being a raging racist. Is that what you want people to see when you look up your actions online? How would that look?
I recall another editor making this bizarre "mind reading" argument about scholars correcting the unwarranted praise of Speer not too long ago. Same person perhaps? Writing neutral, well-referenced, neutral encyclopedia articles about controversial topics is not "defending" neo Nazis and racists. IP editor, the burden is on you to furnish the reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, we appear to have found the problem here. Nobody actually reviewed the information in the repeated complaints.
The complaints by the users list multiple cited reasons. Including that the admin refused to provide the names of the scholars he was quoting as proof and had the user banned from defending himself on his own user page. As for the mind reading issue, a quick 30 second google of the book shows that indeed the author does repeatedly claim to be able to mind read the thoughts of historical figures and actually cites his opinions of their thoughts as proof against actual documents and evidence. He does indeed claim he knew what a stadium full of people were thinking as well. This is clearly not a valid source.
Also, the article history shows that several years ago the admin K.E.Coffman removed Speer's involvement in court cases proving the holocaust after the war, as well as his statements warning against the rise of right wing extremism and neo nazis. These were well cited with court documents and interviews where he clearly states this publicly. The claims made against K.E.Coffman in the reddit article appear to be valid, he is posing as a nazi hunter and using it to remove information about German opposition of Hitler.
As far as the internment article, its also pretty open and shut case. The name of the general who planned and led the operation keeps being removed and users have repeatedly falsely stated that its not cited. Its already cited in the 1943 and 1944 reports to congress already cited, as well as the Supreme Court documents already cited. Took me 30 seconds to verify that. Trying to remove such important information comes across as having a strong ulterior motive.
There is absolutely no doubt that he was the planner and leader of the internment, and defending the removal of his name and his role in internment sure comes across as the defense of a racist. Because who in their right mind would want so desperately to hide the name of a general who carried out something like that? Why so adamant to defend information like that?
See how protecting these kinds of edits by other users could come across as defending racism or nazi sympathizers? If you dont read what people are actually saying its a really bad idea to defend them. You dont know what you are actually defending. It could be anything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B01C:2427:186F:B1D0:2426:6261 (talk • contribs)
You said "the IP addresses are different on those posts. The addresses have been removed for some reason to cause confusion." This is wrong, as the IP addresses are displayed plainly in the diffs in my links. They are Special:Contributions/2600:100A:B016:5BC7:4CE5:D69E:8D86:58B9 and Special:Contributions/2600:100A:B016:5BC7:D565:4B2C:B0FE:8358, both from Overland Park in Kansas. No confusion caused or intended. Binksternet (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 11:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

MileyCy 1Fan

Hi. I found out Daddy Lesons (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of MileyCy 1Fan. Same pattern and mainly focus on Miley Cyrus articles. Can you open an SPI casepage? 2402:1980:24F:C677:87E:AA94:CAC0:2192 (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

See User talk:HickoryOughtShirt?4#MileyCy 1Fan. (I've filed the SPI.) Jc86035 (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see WP:AN#DbivansMCMLXXXVI community ban? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

IP vandal 93.47.218.43

A one week block of one IP address won't help for this long-term IP shifting vandal – some more drastic measures are needed. I'm adding this here because you seem to be familiar with the process (and to keep it somewhat confidential). IPs in this range (from Italy) have been vandalizing articles for years (see Talk:Five Live Yardbirds#29 March 2016 revert). I've lost count of the number of similar IP talk pages that I've added user warnings to. They appear to be a fan of The Undertaker and edited on the Italian WP as Utente:Taker (check out how similar the artists, albums, etc., are that they list on their user page to those they edit here). I don't know if they're related, but a Utente:Undertaker2 was banned there as a sockpuppet. Anyway, thanks for your efforts in this area and good luck. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

86.133.86.30 on 30 December 2017 - 1 January 2018 was not User:HarveyCarter it was me.

Hi

I have noticed that on 2 January 2018 you reverted edits to Mark Rocco, Mile high club Mikey Whiplash and hatted a talkpage discussion on Talk: Valeyard by IP 86.133.86.30 over the previous 3 days and posted a warning to the talkpage of said IP address because you believed they were the work of banned user User:HarveyCarter.

In point of fact, I recognize those IP edits as being my own work. As it says on my user page (written there back in 2016) I rarely bother to log in to my WP account (created back in 2011) except when absolutely necessary - such as for thing like this.

I do not know who Harvey Carter was but I can confirm that he is NOT me and that these edits/comments were made in good faith. From the dates these were posted, I imagine the IP was assigned to my parents' house when I was staying there over the festive period.

Please would you kindly revert your reversions/hatting/warning to the above detailed pages. An apology would be nice too.

Regards

David

Romomusicfan (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I see you have ignored my request (while replying to the Shakira posts below.)
I shall assume good faith and presume that you have a busy life and do not have the time to go checking through your past editing. I did not wish to carry out the reverts myself as the pattern might appear dubious to an admin patrolling edits, but it seems I have little choice. I shall include a link to this discussion in my edit summary for un-reverting the three edits and the talk page thread hatting. I shall also post a reply to you on the 86.133.86.30 talk page which will also include the link.
I trust this should be the end of the matter (although an apology would still be nice.) Romomusicfan (talk)
P.S. I haven't bothered with the revert on the Mikey Whiplash article as someone else (possibly myself) appears to have re-input basically the same information at some point since. Romomusicfan (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I reverted those edits as a part of a sweep through nearby IP edits from 86.133.85.32, 86.133.84.207, 86.133.84.219, 86.133.84.149, 86.133.85.203, 86.133.85.189 and more. Your parents' 86.133.86.30 IP was so close to those it looked to me at the time as if it was the same person. Binksternet (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay, apology accepted mate. Romomusicfan (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Shakira's sales

I saw that you corrected Shakira's sales to 75 million copies worldwide, but a fan (BeikMusic) went there and changed her sales to 140 million records plus 60 million albums sold, using Forbes and Billboard as a source. She has only 50 million certified records and I think the 140kk is not accurated at all. I reverted his editions but he reverted mine too and I don't want to star an edition war with him, can you help me?!--88marcus (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I will look at the situation. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank You.--88marcus (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
He reverted your edition. What can we do about this situation?--88marcus (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The Winner Takes It All Glee Performance citation as a cover

Hi Mr. Binksternet. Why did you revert my contribution to the covers for ABBA's The Winner Takes it All? Glee may have been the first time many young audience members were exposed to ABBA and I consider it an important performance. Thanks for any information you can offer. Grandpasteve4562 (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

You may very well be correct about young viewers, but there is a pretty high bar for inclusion of cover versions, as laid out in the guideline WP:SONGCOVERS. Basically, the cover version needs to be very significant to the topic of the song, with the cover being talked about in the literature or a charting hit single. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
Two years agp I started my Wikipedia adventure, trying to help out as much as I could. I tried to change the Dire Straits wikipedia page, without referencing. I now appreciate your effort in ensuring wikipedia is a factual, non-opinionated website. Ben Stone (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for making references a priority! Binksternet (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Source reliability

Hi Binksternet, could you please check the sources being used on the Love Island (series 5) article, particularly the controversies section, are reliable and not tabloid please? 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:65A3:5D8A:D65:9536 (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

LTA at Lil Tjay?

Hey, would you happen to know the LTA who kept adding "singer" to the Lil Tjay article? Looks like they made another attempt here, which I was able to revert. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm still tracking it down, to see what blocked user is behind it. Check out the many IPs used by this person at Special:Contributions/139.228.31.0/21. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Odd photos...

Greetings: Could you take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martyrs_of_Daimiel&action=history wherein a user added the top of the story photo, but it looks rather like a composite? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Ndublet4Lyf

Can you revert her edits since she was blocked as a UK sock? Thanks! 2402:1980:824E:5A27:7D06:D1DC:7E4A:2F5 (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

That user link doesn't go anywhere. Nothing to do here. Binksternet (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Oops. "NDublet4Lyf". Here you go . 2402:1980:8249:FF00:D948:14F5:8430:D68C (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry

There is an editor who keep adding unsourced content and ordering album ratings for no reason in album-related articles. For example, if you at the page history of The Sun's Tirade,[1][2][3] Cilvia Demo,[4][5] and Isaiah Rashad,[6][7][8] the edits in these articles look very similar. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, TheAmazingPeanuts, somebody from Maryland is using multiple IPs to edit Wikipedia; the oldest I found in the same style was from four years ago when they were bouncing IPs between Chennai, India, and Maryland (proxy? visiting?). They might have registered the username Inorap and then abandoned it.
I looked through some of the histories of the articles of interest, many related to Isaiah Rashad, and I did not confirm a blocked IP or user who has the exact same style as this person. Perhaps indef blocked Varun3281 is the same person. But I cannot state absolutely that we are looking at block evasion... More investigation is needed, with diffs showing similar behavior.
Below is a list of IPs they have used. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your research, you did a better job when it comes to seeing somebody using multiple accounts. I did report this issue to Berean Hunter right here but they don't see these edits being related. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Got to Get You into My Life, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Eoghan Lyng

This is Eoghan Lyng, back after the probationary period.

I am willing to play nicely and co-operate if you are as well.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelLyng (talk • contribs) 19:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

If you would like to edit in good standing you must apply to get the username Rorylyng unblocked. After so many instances of block evasion by you, the username Rorylyng is now under a checkuser block – a more serious situation – and you will need to appeal to the Arbitration Committee by email. See Wikipedia:Appealing a block and Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser_blocks. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MusicLover650

Hi there. User talk:2601:583:600:BFC2:EC2A:1E37:2EDE:4439 is probably another. Similar edits to the IP you just went after, from a similar location in Florida. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Binksternet (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hey Bink. I'm possibly wrong but just looking at when the account started vs when this one was blocked as well as many of the same articles that are being edited lead me to suspect more block evasion by KillerGho$t. Your thoughts? Robvanvee 05:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Exact same style of edit summary, same articles of interest. WP:DUCK. Binksternet (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
What would you say is the appropriate course of action to take or does one just wait for an admin to pick it up? It's probably not grounds enough to put in a checkuser request? Robvanvee 15:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I will make a case WP:SPI. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Cool, going to watch your contributions to learn a bit about the process. What happens in a case when your suspicions are wrong and the person is not a sock? Is there some sort of rap on the knuckles for falsely accusing someone? Robvanvee 17:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
If you're wrong but the case was made in good faith then there's no boomerang back at you. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks as always. Robvanvee 20:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey again. Pretty sure this is another reincarnation of the same sock of KillerGhost. Similar articles and similar edit summaries ("due to no source"). Your thoughts? Robvanvee 05:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The timing is very suspicious, as is the talk page response to your accusation of socking. I will watch for further clues. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks man! BTW I attempted my first SPI report here. I requsted UserCheck but it was declined. Not sure I completely understand the reason why. Any tips or guidance would be greatly appreciated if you have a minute. Robvanvee 14:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The reason was clearly stated by Bbb23: checkusers never publicly connect IP addresses to registered accounts. But since the IP explicitly says it is Jon Janez, you can treat it as block evasion. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
It's all somewhat confusing but I'll get a grasp on it in time. So am I reporting this at the right place? I assume had I not, it would have been removed already. Robvanvee 15:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
For an IP that you have concluded is someone evading their block, you can revert their edits and tag their talk page with the warning Template:Uw-multipleIPs, naming the blocked account by adding a sentence such as "Block evasion by Somevandal using IPs from wherever." If they use that same IP again, you can report them to WP:AIV as Somevandal evading their block, with enough evidence to convince the admins at AIV. It's a two-step process: warn and tag the IP, then report them to AIV after they repeat. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Got it, thanks for the help as always Bink. Robvanvee 19:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Identical edits like this from AerobicThyme928 vs this one from DaFuze164 get me suspicious. Also, as pointed out in your explanation here, edit summaries that are also too close to not be related here and here. Robvanvee 08:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, so I finally did it. Do you mind looking and telling me what you think please Bink, cheers! Robvanvee 17:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Your evidence looks good but you filed the case under MethodMaster101 instead of KillerGho$t. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I saw. Shit. Does this mean a clerk will move it and the case will continue normally or will this be booted now? Robvanvee 19:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Let a clerk move it. The case will continue under KillerGho$t. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Awesome, it was a lot of work :) thanks man! Robvanvee 19:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Nailed it! Robvanvee 15:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: Tommy Bolin (Heavy Metal or not Heavy Metal?).

Good evening. First let me just say that I'm jealous of you because you hold my dream job for which I studied very hard and received very high grades but in which field I was never able to secure lasting employment. And yes, that is an attempt to flatter in the hopes that you might listen to my rationale for replacing the category Heavy Metal to Tommy Bolin's info box. I beseech you to gander at the talk page there to see, and hopefully discuss the reason I used for restoring the category. I'm a very reasonable guy (despite the fact that I can at times be a bit blunt, rash, and quick to pull the trigger). I do however, enjoy the chance to debate a bit, especially on the subject of music and anything related to the subject. So I invite you to please engage me on Tommy Bolin's talk page. I do believe I may have a uniquely unbiased POV, if only due to the fact that at age 58 (nearly 59 now), I am barely learning about Tommy. I would get into it here but I think the appropriate place is on his talk page. Thank you. (By the way, I did undo your undo and requested discussion. And I do agree that TB is not necessarily a Heavy Metal guitarist, however I don't think that's necessarily a good reason not to include the category). SentientParadox (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The AllMusic biography lists heavy metal as important to Bolin's career, so have at it. Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Appreciate it. FWIW, I didn't include the tag based on his playing. Frankly I only barely began looking for his music a few days ago and haven't even listened to it much yet. The reason was actually due to the fact that I feel if he played with DP, people into similar bands might like to read about him, go listen to him like I am now, and possibly broaden their taste horizons. That's how it worked for me in the late Seventies and ever since. Only then I had to do it with used and cut-out vinyls and reading credits and liner notes. The hard way but it was well worth it. Take care! SentientParadox (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Imagine Dragons song articles

Can you keep an eye on articles including Born to Be Yours, Bad Liar (Imagine Dragons song), Zero (Imagine Dragons song) and more. The 95.83.xx.xx range continuing genre warring. 2402:1980:253:27C4:A05D:6B:F698:801E (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

95.152.xx.xx and 95.83.xx.xx ranges

Hi Binksternet. 95.152.xx.xx and 95.83.xx.xx ranges involved nonstop genre warring on every Imagine Dragons songs/albums articles: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Make sure you list them in any case. 2402:1980:250:B544:5BC9:8BF1:436C:27C1 (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Am I correct...

in seeing 73.240.105.138 = TannerGoethals3 = Jonathonevansofficial? - SummerPhDv2.0 19:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Tanner is a teenager in Utah with a learning disability and poor English writing skills. The IP you list is from Washington state, and shows good grammar in the edit summaries. So the WA IP is not Tanner.
Regarding the Jonathanevansofficial username, back in April I indicated that I thought this was Tanner, but I can't remember why I thought so, and I can't see the connection today. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Message to self :P

Apparently you're me :) - FlightTime (open channel) 02:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Or... am I you ? - FlightTime (open channel) 02:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC) :P
Ha! Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Coadhamlala9

The user must be Mrwallace05. Can you keep an eye? 2402:1980:255:1FAD:AFA5:8FFC:1356:8DA5 (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

George Carlin Page

You previously removed some details I added about George Carlin's personal life, citing an apparent over-use of quoted material. I am not sure what the issue with using quoted material to back up the information provided is. If you could explain your issue, and perhaps offer an alternative, I would appreciate it greatly.Gbjerkec (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Gbjerkec, I removed that material for several reasons. The most important one is that your sourcing is from Carlin himself, with your interpretation and framing on top of Carlin's writings. WP:PRIMARY says that we should not analyze the primary source ourselves, and WP:SECONDARY says that the encyclopedia is built mainly on secondary sources which have already performed the analysis. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought that I wasn't really reading too much into it. It seemed pretty blatant.76.11.44.232 (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You chose the two quotes that you wanted to emphasize, out of hundreds of possible quotes, which represents you determining the framing. You wrote, "Although born to a Catholic family, Carlin vocally rejected religion, frequently criticizing religion in various routines." This conclusion does not appear in his works.
Think of it like the Bible, where the words are open to various interpretations, and where we require Bible scholars and other topic experts to describe the main interpretations.
Today, you went with WP:SECONDARY sources but each of these sources is a poor choice for one reason or another. This book says that Carlin "blathers" about corporate media propaganda, the word blather showing that the author does not think highly of Carlin's sincerity. The writer turns the quotes on their head when he says the routine about corporate media was broadcast by corporate media and later sold by corporate media, cancelling or at least dulling Carlin's message. This source gives a throwaway quote without interpretation. Binksternet (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I am writing about Carlin's personal views, the author's opinion of Carlin through words such as "blathers" are irrelevant. The author's premise that Carlin's views are somehow illegitimatized by the use of coorporate media are not in conflict with the fact that Carlin shares these views, a fact to which the author clearly concedes even if they disapprove. Directly after the quote, you claim is throwaway, the book says "Rather than something to admire, here we find the idea that the American dream is basically pulling the wool over people's eyes." I fail to see how this is not an interpreation that alligns with my claim that Carlin was critical of the American dream. There is also still a source which you have not provided any reason for being a poor choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbjerkec (talk • contribs)
Your third source says Carlin used the phrase "humanitarian bombing". It says nothing about Carlin's thoughts or motives, except that Carlin "satirized" the practice of political euphemisms. That book is not a useful source for interpreting Carlin's words. Yet you employed the book to say that Carlin was against American Imperialism, which is quite a stretch. Unacceptable. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I concede that my third source was a poor choice. Perhaps this source is better or this one if the first one is too biased. Regardless, you still have not addressed my counterpoints to your issues raised with my first and second sources. Furthermore, I don't see how interpreting quotes such as "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity" and "But we can bomb the shit outta your country, all right. We can bomb the shit outta your country. Especially if your country is full of brown people. Oh, we like that, don't we? That's our hobby now. But it's also our new job in the world: bombing brown people. Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya. You got some brown people in your country? Tell 'em to watch the fuck out, or we'll goddamn bomb them! (...) I'm still waiting for the day we bomb the English. People who really deserve it." as anti-imperialist is a stretch in the first place. It's pretty blatant.Gbjerkec (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:No original research. Wikipedia is very clear about who is allowed to interpret primary sources. Only WP:SECONDARY sources are allowed to interpret primary sources, unless it's a simple math problem. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need that a Carlin scholar to figure out what he was getting at. It's pretty clear. However, you're right, Wikipedia does imply this. So, could you address my counterpoints to your issues with my secondary sources regarding Carlin's criticism of the American Dream and of American capitalism, and check over my other secondary sources regarding his criticism of American imperialism?Gbjerkec (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editions by 190.5.32.179

This user doesn't seem to follow some rules of Wikipedia (e.g. Point of view, Consensus and Verifiability).

He's starting a genre warring in Stratovarius article, and insist in removing a sourced genre, see the history.

He was warned twice on his talk page.

Please, I ask your help for this. Thanks. --Marcos FTO (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This guy thinks he is the true authority on genre, a violation of WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Your advice

See The Crystal Method, Vegas (The Crystal Method album), Mikael Johnston, Mephisto Odyssey - V/RS issues - all wikilinked. There seems to be quite a bit of name-dropping citations (riding on the coat tails) rather than citing RS articles about the success of their remix, which I can't seem to find. For example, in the Johnston BLP - Dresden and Johnston's remixes of Lily Allen and Nadia Ali both hit #1 in the Billboard Magazine Hot Dance Club Play Chart in 2009. I'm unable to verify via the cited source. I found Lily Allen's "The Fear" in a RS, but what I found for the remix is basically a sales promo. AllMusic.com (?? RS ??) did a blurb about Johnston - a measure of success because Johnston's Mephisto Odyssey signed with Warner Bros. My thinking is to merge his BLP into Mephisto Odyssey which passes WP:N because of the Warner Bros label, but before I get into either merging or AFDing, I would appreciate your thoughts. There are quite a few articles with similar issues in our NPP/AfC queue, and I need a bit of direction. Atsme Talk 📧 18:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a big problem. WP:GNG says that an article can stand if two or more sources describe the topic in depth. All of the linked articles are supported by multiple in-depth sources. Another measure of notability is whether a person has influenced a major trend, which appears to be true of Mephisto Odyssey, kick-starting the San Francisco style of house music, which was taken up and put into the mainstream by the Chemical Brothers. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

List of hate groups listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of hate groups. Since you had some involvement with the List of hate groups redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Binksternet/Archive51&oldid=911892720"