User talk:Binksternet/Archive33

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For reverting vandalism in articles regarding the Philippines during World War II, I present to you this barnstar. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Why, thank you! It's nice to be noticed. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

WW-II battle articles and Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army

Please see Talk:Philippine Commonwealth Army#Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duets (Frank Sinatra album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Come Fly With Me. 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) 13:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2, 2014

Hi, I've created a page for the Del Fuegos' debut album, The Longest Day yesterday. Can you help me with it? Country Girl 21:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to help, but I just started packing for a nine-day gig out of town. I will get around to your new article in a day or two, when I'm stuck in airport waiting rooms or hotel lobbies. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Kimball International

The change I am trying to make is to reflect the spin-off of the Kimball Electronics subsidiary. Kimball International and Kimball Electronics are now separate companies. The changes are being reverted back with reason that they are 'promotional'. How might I word the changes differently so they will be accepted? The change is simply to reflect that Kimball Electronics is no longer a part of Kimball International. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnichol63 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You wrote that Kimball "is a leading manufacturer of design driven, technology savvy, high quality furnishings sold under the Company's family of brands, National Office Furniture, Kimball Office and Kimball Hospitality. Our diverse portfolio provides solutions for the workplace, learning, healing and hospitality environments. Customers can access our products globally through a variety of distribution channels."

In the business world that looks like a normal mission statement. In the rest of the world, it looks like WP:PEACOCK language, with "leading", "savvy", "high quality", etc. The encyclopedia is supposed to be objective, so it should not say "our diverse portfolio" as if Kimball is controlling the text. Please make the appropriate changes sound as neutral as possible. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Philippine Commonwealth Army#WW-II battle articles and Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Philippine Commonwealth Army#WW-II battle articles and Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Genre changes.

You should've warned me early about using Allmusic, also what you did was false. You accused me of not "sourcing my genres" which I did, then you continued to show me why I couldn't use Allmusic. You are also trying to block me when I've done nothing wrong, which offends me dearly. TheHolyKiwi (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to see you blocked. I would much rather see you work with references to determine genre in a manner that fits with the WikiProject Albums guideline. Most people who change genres do so because what they see doesn't fit their own opinion. Me, I have no opinion; I use the references to say what it is. Binksternet (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete bio

Fair enough. Please delete what you consider promotional material but I am keen and proud to be recognised as a atheist/humanist and I have been actively so in my own small way for the last ten years. It is with a measure of pride I refer you to my post "My Awakening" on my newly created blog. [[1]]

Thanks for the advice,learning all the time. - Doug Schorr (douglas.schorr@gmail.com)

Every biography on Wikipedia must pass WP:BASIC or at least WP:GNG. One self-published book is not going to satisfy those. Binksternet (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Innerpartysystem

I do apologize for the lack of citation. Here's a link for the citation. https://twitter.com/spacebrotherr/status/529272011840061441 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIPCobain1994 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC) May I add the edit now?

Editing article about Event Application

Hello I was looking for people who added and edited articles about mobile technologies, and I've found you. I'am new on wikipedia and I want to add article about Event Applications. Everytime I try to do it, I get message that my text contains promotional content. But I don't know where and which fragment are exactly promotional. Could you add the as an experienced wikipedia editor? Or review it for me?

I'll be really grateful. Anna Paluch (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I see you have a draft under development at Draft:Event_Application. I will take a look at the sources and see if there's anything I can do to improve it. Binksternet (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Songs For Swingin' Lovers!

Hello Michael,

I'm not sure where to even begin re posting a reliable source for my revisions to the SWINGIN' LOVERS! page.

I can tell you quickly that with regards to information specific to the Mobile Fidelity SACD, I consulted on this release. The problems with incorrect tapes used in the releases of this album go back to 1962, when Capitol made a set of dubs tampered with echo and eq, and stopped mastering LPs from the original sources (the master for lacquers cut in LA, or an unprocessed copy for lacquers cut in NY). After 1968, the album was only available in fake-stereo in the USA until the initial CD release. The original CD from 1987 used the correct tapes, but the mastering engineer added echo to the digital master. The current disc from Capitol uses the 1962 processed copies, with lots of further signal processing. Scattered individual songs have occasionally been released from the correct tapes unfettered by added echo, but the MoFi SACD is the first time since 1962 the album has been available whole from the correct tapes without added echo. The comment about the artwork is also true, as I was the source for what got used on the disc, and had the scan professionally made.

Re John Palladino, while you cited a source for his engineering, I also know John. The first reference to his engineering of the material I know off-hand is probably in Chuck Granata's book SESSIONS WITH SINATRA.

Re "Memories of You", that first was released on an LP from the Longines Symphonette in 1973, though in fake stereo. There was a British release in 1978, a Japanese release in the 80's, and finally the more commonly available version on THE CAPITOL YEARS 3CD set.

Please advise what further proof you need, details, questions, etc. Otherwise, I'd appreciate my changes re-instated. The information is correct. You may also e-mail me at meluccim717@optonline.net

Martin

Wikipedia has a hard and fast rule against original research; that is, the normal kind of research expected of an author. The rule prevents somebody using Wikipedia as a first publication method. What Wikipedia requires is that the information be published elsewhere first, published on a reliable source such as a magazine, book or newspaper. So if the information about Palladino and fake stereo has not been written up in an industry magazine or similar, then it the information is not going to be carried by Wikipedia. It does not matter how much expertise you have personally; the information must have been previously published. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

VDARE

SPLC can hardly be considered "neutral," yet you accuse another user of not being neutral because they removing SPLC's characterization from the VDARE article's intro. Either SPLC's opinion of VDARE doesn't belong in the intro, or VDARE's response to SPLC's characterization of it is appropriate to achieve NPOV. I'd prefer to include the latter as it succinctly and objectively spells out the dispute between the two without requiring anyone to visit both VDARE and SPLC. It is appropriate to cite to VDARE as a primary source here because they are responding directly to a statement about them from SPLC. This is both permissible and appropriate here according to WP:PS guidelines. 24.217.38.90 (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

VDARE's response is important because of what? It would be important if it were mentioned in the media. You need a WP:SECONDARY source to show that anybody paid attention. Otherwise it's not important enough to be in the article. Achieving a neutral balance in Wikipedia is not about giving equal time or equal text space to opposing issues, it's about representing the issues in the same relative measure as can be found in the literature. It's quite common that only one side will be mentioned in the media, leaving a sharp imbalance. Wikipedia mirrors that imbalance and calls it neutral. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's inconsistent of you to say that SPLC is Media and then delete VDARE's direct response to SPLC for not being media. It appears that SPLC and VDARE fully acknowledge each other's existence as media. Given that the WP:PRIMARY source on VDARE is in direct response to SPLC's criticism, it is a highly accurate representation of VDARE's own views towards SPLC's views of it, and including it in the article works toward achieving NPOV, verifiability, and NRO. That doesn't mean that VDARE is a non-biased or authoritative source on other things. It also doesn't need to be. As per WP:PS it isn't always necessary to have WP:SECONDARY sources. In this limited context it is highly appropriate to include this WP:BIASED and WP:PRIMARY source. It's brief, an accurate statement of fact, easily understood, and unlikely to be misinterpreted by anyone reading it. I'd say that either we acknowledge that SPLC is a biased source and doesn't belong in the intro, or VDARE's direct response to SPLC characterization also deserves the brief mention as well. 24.217.38.90 (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that VDARE's response is worthy all by itself. I also don't agree that SPLC's bias makes them somehow less of an authority. The SPLC is widely respected, used by scholars as a reference. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please review

Hi Binkster! Long time no wiggle on our friend's buem, but I have found another one perhaps for review: Jeff Jordan (painter). The one and only external link (reference?) on his page 404's at Rolling Stone. Following through to the fair use page for one of the images linked in the list of artworks goes here where his name doesn't seem to be on the page. My whiskers wiggle on this one, what do you think? I spend way too much time adminning at Commons to be up on the ins and outs of this project too and I don't want to annoy people by overstepping. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about Jordan; there's this wordpress article (which cannot be used) from an apparently expert art observer. So at least the article isn't wrong, but perhaps Jordan is not quite notable enough. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Eternal Flame (song)

Can you keep an eye of the page if who adding unsourced genre. 183.171.180.33 (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's on my watchlist. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Slipknot timeline

Hey – I just had a question. I'm not saying what you've done on Slipknot is incorrect, however I put a lot of work into fixing the band members and the timeline for this article, and I just wanted to know why I wasn't allowed to keep it (even if Alessandro Venturella and Jay Weinberg have to be excluded from the article, for now). As I said on the talk page (before I made the edit in question), I've done the timelines and band members section of a lot of high-profile bands, such as Metallica, Aerosmith and so on, and I spent a lot of time (as I do with all of these articles) working on this one in particular, so I'd like to know whether I can at least restore the timeline.

Plus, I was a little bit confused by the message you left on my talk page (again, I'm not saying it's incorrect, but I didn't know what it was), however if all you were saying was that I shouldn't have added "Jay and Vman", then I understand. Anyway, could you please let me know about the timeline? I'd just like to be able to keep the timeline so that all of my work didn't go to waste. Thanks – with regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. I was saying you should not have added Weinberg and venturella. Weinberg has not been positively identified in the media as being a member of the band. Venturella has been identified by his left hand tattoo as appearing in one video, but like Weinberg he is not named as a band member in the media. Binksternet (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That's all I wanted to know. Glad we've cleared that up - sorry if I've caused any stress or anything. I'm still sort of relatively new to this whole thing, especially compared to you and what you've managed to achieve. I mostly just do the band members section and timelines for these sort of articles (I'm pretty good with timelines now), among other stuff, and this is another opportunity I saw, so sorry if I initially screwed up. Thanks for helping me out. 4TheWynne (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

But Venturella has been confirmed by Corey and has been named many times in the media. Also you gave no explanation why you had deleted everything I had done for the page in the past few days. You clearly did not read it to see that everything was full referenced and my information was correct. Donnie had been working for the band in 2014 because the first studio sessions for the album were in March 2014 and the referenced article had a clear quote from Jim and Mick stating that Donnie helped out on some of the studio sessions with the first being in March 2014 so why did you revert this? (User talk:TypeONegative13) — Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Venturella has only been confirmed as appearing in the video. That leaves open the question of whether Venturella played on the song, whether he played on the album at all, and whether Venturella is in the band. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Double Barrel and Israelites

Regarding your 30 August 2014 removal of the paragraph comparing "Double Barrel" and "Israelites" in the Wikipedia "Double Barrel" article, you stated that "Whitburn makes none of these comparisons." The pages from Whitburn address only the last point, that both Dave And Ansil Collins and Desmond Dekker & The Aces were one-hit wonders. The many other remarkable comparisons in that paragraph arise from comparing characteristics and chart performances of the two hits and the two acts. The now-removed paragraph merely summarized those comparisons for all to see. I appeal for that paragraph to be restored to the place where it formerly existed in the "Double Barrel" article.107.185.145.26 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the policy page WP:No original research? You made this series of edits, telling the reader that the two songs have "cold intros", an uncommon term which you did not explain, and that "both Dekker and Barker had recorded for Dodd." You created the whole paragraph, editing under several IP addresses. The cited source you supplied (after a fact tag was applied to your paragraph by someone else) was Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles 1955-2002, a book which simply includes the song in a list, making no comparisons between it and "Israelites". That's why I removed your whole paragraph. Comparisons between the two songs are absent from all the literature I could find. Wikipedia has no place telling the reader things that have not been previously published. You cannot use Wikipedia as a place to publish your analysis. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Another BLP to look at, please?

Hiya Bink! In the course of photo deletions, this gent popped out Acharya Surinder Sharma Shastri, which besides being very short on substance, has links that 404 (including his own webpage), Visiting the website of the facilities he claims to have built on the biography page - his name is not mentioned. See: Hindu Heritage Centre and [2]. I couldn't find the document he claims to edit/create and suspect this is some form of personal page especially since his name appears nowhere on the canadahinduheritage site which runs the Hindu Heritage Centre. I came to these two pages because of copyvio pictures deleted, and the uploader's subsequent claims of "own work." One of the photos was a commercial air photo with overprinting, and the other was the infamous Facebook 720x720 ... so we'll see how far he gets with UNDEL. People like this make my nose wiggle; they're so obviously self-promoting. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go look at this guy. Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Belly Dance: American Belly Dance Edit

Hi Binksternet,

I would kindly ask that you please stop reverting my edits to the belly dance page. This page is VERY inaccurate and I would like to update it. There is some good/relevant info on there, however, it is in need of updating. I am a professional belly dancer and I do teach belly dance as well. It makes sense that someone that it trained on the topic write about it. Also, it makes sense that the people on the page not be nameless faceless objects. For instance, Rubina has her name on her photo and so she should. If your photo is used it should be cited just as you would cite information as it is visual information. Websites with inaccurate information about belly dance make it very difficult for professionals and skews the point of view of the public that would strive to gain better understanding of this beautiful art form. I hope you are against the spread of inaccuracy and misinformation that makes it difficult for other to understand this art form.

I seen that you reverted it for self promotion. Which is why I removed the link in the paragraph itself. However, I am a professional American Cabaret dancer. I do own my photo's. Since the page talks about belly dance and all the different types and styles it makes sense to also have a photo of an American Cabaret dancer which is not yet represented. This is why I added my photo. It is an accurate photo of a real American Cabaret belly dancer that I own. I am not "self promoting" as it is not like I wrote any where on there to hire me or come to my classes. I simple posted accurate info and a photo of a real American Cabaret belly dancer. Linking my name to my bio is just letting those interested in learning more about the dancer in the photo do so.

I am going to update this again. Please leave it be.

Thanks! ~~CutePixieDancer~~

Yes, I reverted your additions because of the self-promotion I saw in putting a photograph of yourself at the top of the page. Another reason I reverted, a reason I did not state, was that your changes to the article text were made without referencing a reliable source. Wikipedia is built on the things that are published in reliable sources, not the things that individual editors think are true. If you can WP:CITE a source for your text alteration it would help me understand where you got your information. Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bink : I completely understand your concern and I completely understand the need for citation. However, It is extremely difficult and in many cases impossible to cite sources on this topic. Belly dance is not a collegiate study. It is a folk dance created before the advantage of modern written history. It has been passed down from family to family, mother to daughter, etc. This is why no one can agree on an origin of the dance or even a cohesive lineage for that matter. I can tell you that the information I changed was based on the instruction and mentorship I have received over the past 10 years from many dancers and seminars. One of note being Shira, a well known wealth of knowledge of belly dance who has studied it for decades and even traveling back to the countries of origin to "get the story straight" as it were. She is a highly respected source of information in the belly dance world. Some of the knowledge I shared is also based on the teachings of Faten Munger. An amazing, internationally renowned, Egyptian instructor who has been in the business for well over 40 years. These are just a few people of my list of contributors to the information I have acquired over my decade of information accumulation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CutePixieDancer (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 November 2014‎ (UTC)

• Sock indeffed & master blocked 72 hours. I've semi'd the page and nominated the image for deletion at Commons.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Strong measures, certainly. I would not mind seeing her return to the article after she checks out some of the books I listed at Talk:Belly dance#Published sources, and if she decides not to promote herself as a cabaret act. Her assertion that there is very little written about the subject is incorrect, of course. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I've modified this a bit. User:AdoniaBellyDance has been indeffed for username violation...and if she is accepting of not edit-warring then I'm willing to unblock CutePixieDancer as I've stated on her talk page. I see now that she didn't intend to sock but that was the net worth of it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, Thank you for unblocking me. However, I give up. If you read all of those books you would know that they are full of contradictions. I was not promoting myself at all after Bink pointed out that it was not allowed in my first post. I removed the "self promo" and reposted. Furthermore, I would never promote myself as a "cabaret act" as I am not a burlesque dancer and don't take my clothes off. Yes, there is a difference between a "cabaret act" and an "American Cabaret belly dancer". I never said "that there is very little written about the subject". Actually, there is a LOT of information written on the topic of belly dance. A lot of it is written by belly dancers like me! What I did say is that "Belly dance is not a collegiate study" and that "It is extremely difficult and in many cases impossible to cite sources on this topic.". This is true. You can NOT get a degree in belly dance. The books on belly dance are very interesting but many are full of opinion and not fact. For nearly every bit of history you find on belly dance you can equally find another author that says the opposite. There are no conclusive studies that say...belly dance started on X day (or even decade for that matter)... belly dance shows happen using X formula... etc. For crying out loud no one can even agree on what country in which it originated. It is an ancient art form, not a science. As for the puppeting, that was not "the net worth of it". It was my understanding that the previous account did not exist and it didn't exist because of the name I chose and not for any reason concerning my post. Shortly thereafter Bink removed what I had posted. By the time that happened I had already created a different account to rectify the name issue. I read his objections in the history and reposted what I thought was acceptable. Apparently it was not so Bink and I were discussing it when Beraen blocked me without figuring out what was actually going on first. So there you have it. It was a few small innocent changes by a well meaning professional in the topic being discussed. That you two who obviously have no knowledge of (the art form) but have a bunch of unnecessary (online) power and were happy to abuse it. Would it not be easier to have this discussion on my talk page before attacking me. You could see I was new to wikipedia. All you had to do was ask why I made the changes and informed me that I did it in a way that was unsatisfactory and I would have kindly fixed the error. Easy peasy!!! Instead you decided to gang up and attack the well meaning newb to the site and then start accusing me of things that I had no intention of. Now I have no interest in continuing with this site and you just wasted hours of my time and yours for no good reason and no progress has been made. Congrats! You win! I will never return. Now I know why wikipedia is so inaccurate and why no one respects it!

P.S. As for the photo. I will be happy to have it removed. I wouldn't want my image associated with such obvious ignorance!

Quaudiophiliac, November 2014

Hello. I am a bit bemused by your revision of my recent edits to the Wikipedia page for Quaudiophiliac. The page currently states that Quaudiophiliac was Zappa's "first foray into surround sound formatted music." This is demonstrably untrue. As stated in my edit, Zappa released two albums in quadraphonic in the 1970s. I even provided an external reference as evidence, as well as a link to another Wikipedia page that also supports the statement (DiscReet Records, Zappa's quadraphonic record label). I fail to understand how a statement of fact supported by evidence can be considered "less than neutral". Neb-Maat-Re (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you! Glad I'm doing something correctly. ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A Question. Is there a way to compare edit patterns across users automatically?

(as a sock-puppet and troll catching tool, for instance.)Anmccaff (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• One possible tool is automatic when you file a sockpuppet investigation: http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/UserCompare/ It compiles a report a little while after you file the the sockpuppet case at WP:SPI. The manual interface is here, but you need to enter an access key to work it. Not so helpful beforehand, but you do have the option of emailing a request for a report at request@usercompare.tk
• Then there's http://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/editorinteract.html which analyzes the interactions of multiple editors, which may be handy for sockpuppet investigations but is better suited to hounding cases. Anybody can use it.
• Another tool shows the last 1,000 edits of two users, to see how they are intertwined in time: http://tools.wmflabs.org/ptools/intertwined.php. Here's a recent lookup I performed on two editors that were acting in the same general fashion on the same topic, as if they were two different people but working together.
• Finally, http://tools.wmflabs.org/intersect-contribs/index.php is a tool that shows commonly edited articles. Here's an actual report from a real sockpuppet investigation, showing an unusual intersection of articles between the master and the puppet. By comparison, this is what a false report looks like—the laughable case in which I am supposedly your sockpuppet. Binksternet (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I have an admin sock puppet?! I must use this Power only for Good.
  • Thanks. There's someone who just breezed through the GM/Streetcar page and ripped out vasty chunks of words, the style looks vaguely familiar.Anmccaff (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Haha! I'm not an admin. Binksternet (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Dammit. Is there a way to request higher-quality quasisocks? On a totally unrelated topic, I was wondering if you are naturally near any of the central bay area libraries. I am trying to find someone who can easily and cheaply source some newspaper articles for the "Streetcar Conspiracy" page. I'm just out of striking range at the moment.Anmccaff (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I am somewhat near UC Berkeley's fine set of libraries, but to use them I would have to pay daily parking fees and their annual fee for the privilege of being called an "alumni" and having access to the libraries. (It costs $60, and you need not have been a student there.) Though I am quite busy in the next few days, I expect to have some free time in December. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm in about the same boat; in December I'll have time and access to the San Jose area's fine set of libraries -hey, stop laughing, have you seen Cupertino's and the boring parts of SJS's? - but right now I can only research local newspapers at a prohibitive cost in time, money, or both. This seems to me to be a real problem with Wiki; controversial articles are sourced by availability and access, not by quality. Thanks for the info on Berkeley; I suspect the pay-over-time life membership would be usefull to a lot of researchers.Anmccaff (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare 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) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

He's the Bink Winkie Bugle Boy of Company B! Steeletrap (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Congrats on the Bugle award, Binkster. Steeletrap (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

I am so glad that another editor realizes what a problem that sockpuppeteer causes! It was making me feel discouraged, because I felt like I was casting pennies into a dry well. If you need any help with the long-term abuse page, please let me know. Thank you so much! --Candy156sweet (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome! The trouble you went through starting way back in April–July 2007 is very plain to see to someone who is looking through all the sockpuppeteers editing history. You've been a real trouper, hanging in there when the going was tough. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Potential RFA

Have you thought about becoming an admin? I've frequently seen you fight vandalism and other disruptions like genre warriors, and your investigations on Legolas2186 were quite thorough. You seem to also be active enough, have plenty of contributions, and work well within the community. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have thought about running for admin; in fact I did so unsuccessfully in March 2013. I find that the lack of admin tools slows me down but it does not stop me from contributing down in the trenches where it matters. I participate here in a rolling-up-the-sleeves manner that has perhaps more leeway than an administrator (who might be constrained by the concern of being de-sysopped.)

My energetic anti-vandal style of contribution does not fit with everybody's wishes; there are still some folks here who would vote against another RFA with my name at the top. Every such vote counts as two votes because in order to pass, the typical RFA needs at least a 2:1 ratio of positive to negative votes—usually more than that. If a future RFA of mine is to be successful, it will have to have a lot more positive votes than the last one. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I see. If you decide to run again, I don't think you'd have as many worries with regard to "gone _____ without blocks" (something I noticed held you down there). You'd also be able to get socks blocked sooner if successful. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Quality not quantity

I think what is occurring on the article Deftones may be you trying to remove "nu metal" from the Infobox. Maybe you should be arguing for the removal of that genre from the Infobox of the article Mudvayne since it is inconsistently sourced there. --63.155.164.33 (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Person from Eugene, you have it backwards: I'm arguing for the inclusion of nu metal at Deftones. You don't want me to come over to Mudvayne because I will likely agree with Sergecross about keeping nu metal. I think the genre of nu metal has a bad reputation among fans of bands, but nevertheless it is/was a widely used term for a bunch of bands. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Where's the Beef (in Objections to Evolution; Moral objections/Human as Animal)

Binksternet -- you've apparently not read or not focused on the issue being addressed, that there the section within Objections to Evolution lacks any such objection. So the question is how to address that lack .... and my proposal was to put in a lede sentence summarizing the section/subsection titles and hang citation needed on that. Allowed weeks for input after that, and now am implementing what input consensus that was there.

I think it's incumbent on any other edits to now respect prior TALK and go a bit slow, and would hope for discussion leading to improvement of article rather than what feels like instant reverts without any consideration behind them... Just saying I've tried to do the TALK process and am not feeling the love back.

Look forward to any help you can give to fixing the objection section without an objection concern.

Markbassett (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed summary sentence was opaque and incoherent. Who here is preaching about going slow? You're the one edit-warring your new paragraph into the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

B - any feeling of opaque should lead to addition, preferably after Talk. I am the one preaching about going slow. I put an explanation of the concern and proposed a draft was up for weeks Talk consensus/edits before posting, and I suggest that rapid erasure was unnecessary ... pushing back on instant or backwards motion is part of the going slow deal. The whole article is there to draw better inputs and the world will not end if you or someone else are a day or more before finding some better wording and cites. Just wiki stuff man, all a work trying to progress. Markbassett (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. A newly composed paragraph that you feel must be tagged with "citation needed" is a paragraph that should not appear in mainspace. Its composition must be improved and referenced first. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced changes on David Guetta by IP

Hello.

I am contacting you to inform you that you may need to intervene at David Guetta givne that the other editor remains persistent in making undiscussed changes. I'm trying to avoid a 3RR violation, so I only made two reverts prior to discussion.

Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. 2602:304:59B8:1F19:417:9794:4F8B:F349 (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Systematic vandalism disguised under good faith

Hello Michael, thank you for undoing the edits made to pages such as Michael Wilton, Chris DeGarmo and Eddie Jackson (musician). One of these edits were marked as "good faith" edit by you, but if you look at the revision history, you'll see that it's a form of (very subtle) systematic vandalism that started on November 6th and has been performed by various IP and MAC addresses (some of them have been blocked before and since then). --Eddyspeeder (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

My mom calls me Michael; you can call me Bink, Binkster or Binksternet.

Regarding the systematic vandalism, you are welcome. That is, thank you for thanking me. The "good faith" tag is not my intention. Instead, it is part of the WP:Twinkle reverting system. If I just hit the red "rollback vandal" link then the edit is reverted with no note telling people why I performed that action. If instead I hit the "rollback AGF" link then I am offered the chance to communicate to others by way of edit summary. I prefer to leave a few bread crumbs behind so that folks can figure out why I am running around making lots of reversions.

I will continue to keep an eye out for that vandal. I see you have been very vigilant along those lines, so thank you for that. Like

Binksternet (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Binkster, thanks for clearing those things up (your name & the reverting system)! :-) Super that you will keep track of the edits! --Eddyspeeder (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Recovering Deleted Text

Hi, How do I get back into my sandbox my contributions to 'Chirp' that you deleted a few weeks ago? I have a copy of what I originally submitted, but there were a few amendments made later by other editors that perhaps should be retained. I intend to submit it as a separate article, as agreed, but I also need to expand it here and there according to suggestions made. D1ofBerks (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by editing

Instead of simply removing information, why not first take a minute or two to see whether it is true? Miley is clearly dating Patrick Schwarzenegger. http://www.people.com/article/miley-cyrus-birthday-patrick-schwarzenegger . The problem is compounded by the fact that you rudely and abrasively accuse noobs who add accurate information--particularly in the realm of song genfres--of debasing the encyclopedia. Steeletrap (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet appropriately per WP:BLP policy removed the unreferenced info marking the edit as good faith in the edit summary and left the appropriate politely worded information message on the user's page about the need for references on biographical information. Most of us who watch these articles do not spend our lives watching the dating histories of celebrities and see enough gossip and fake into to not trust assertions. It is expected that info of this type, when added, will have the required references. The person adding the info is responsible for sourcing the info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said Binkster had to devote his life to analyzing Miley's dating history (though he is welcome and even encouraged to lend his skills to this important area of study). I merely encouraged him to use Google. Verifying this fact took me 7.5 seconds. Steeletrap (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

On Gardel's birthplace

Hi barnstar

I suggest you investigate into Gardel's background before saying that I was biased. I added all the relevant references, I included links to Gardel's different ID. Even if you think that what I wrote isn't neutral, you ought to look at wikipedia in Spanish's entry for Gardel. It's much more complete and it includes BOTH birth theories, which are BOTH relevant and documented. Neither theory is perfect, but they are equally widely accepted as possible. I think it would be fair to imitate wikipedia in Spanish article on Gardel's history. In fact all the entry is much more complete than this one. If you want I can translate it and modify it accordingly.

Both French AND Uruguayan theories should be respected because they've been investigated into for several years by different people and are mutually acknowledged by supporters of either theory.

Librosdediamante (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Sorry, but no. The most respected scholars say Gardel was born in Toulouse. The Uruguayan story is for tourism, not accuracy. If my Spanish was any better I would go to the Spanish Wikipedia page and correct it. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Succession box

As you know, there has been a heated debate about succession due to redistricting involving house representatives and I want talk to someone reasonable about this. Right now as it stands, there is a new rule that came up this year that succession is not to be included in the infobox. However, it only seems to have been applied to Michael Grimm and Charles Rangel while the rest were left alone. Note that succession in the infobox is the way it has always been for years without question since the start of Wikipedia. The fact that so many articles were unchanged leads me to believe that the general consensus hasn't changed. The problem is the infobox, when referring to Rangel, was changed to "redistricted" while while every other house member who went through redistricting, is shown as being succeeded by someone else just fine. For example: Yvette Clarke, Gregory Meeks, Peter T. King, Steve Israel, and Nydia Velázquez. I have pointed out this issue on many discussion pages that it confuses readers and is inconsistent, but seems to be always ignored. Surely you can see the problem with this, right? TL565 (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The solution is to fix all those other biographies with misleading progression boxes. Redistricting should reset the succession. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Since there is so much redistricting, it makes you wonder if there is any need to mention anyone preceding or succeeding in the infobox at all. There would be so many articles on U.S. Representatives past and present it would be impossible to count them all. I think there needs to be a major discussion about this because this would change something that has been in place for so many years and would effect likely thousands of articles. I also think there is plenty of argument to say that succession does still apply due to the district number staying the same. If it is ultimately decided that the infoboxes should change, it needs to be enforced on every article. That is going to be hard to do. I just hope it isn't going to be applied to a few articles and not the rest. Inconsistency is not what Wikipedia needs. TL565 (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

We should not shy away from fixing articles because of the large scope of the problem. I don't see anything particularly compelling about the district number as compared to the district geography and demographics. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem. Do the articles actually need fixing in the first place? I don't see the issue with succession after redistricting. Most readers know that districts are listed by number, not physical geography. Since the district number never changes, it is not false or misleading to say one succeeded another in that district after redistricting. Answer this, if this is such an issue, why is it just being noticed now after so many years? I really do think suddenly changing this will cause a lot more problems than before. TL565 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't assign a higher value to the practice of ignoring a problem, if that practice is long established. No matter how old the problem is I think we should fix it. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Succession

I rather think some Laugh-In writers have decided to join in the discussions about Congressperson succession where the two districts have naught to do with each other <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the editors who have offered their thoughts at Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC, I don't demean those who differ from me in their opinions. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Recovering Deleted Text (2)

Hi (again!), How do I get back into my sandbox my contributions to 'Chirp' that you deleted a few weeks ago? I have a copy of what I originally submitted, but there were a few amendments made later by other editors that perhaps should be retained. I intend to submit it as a separate article, as agreed, but I also need to expand it here and there according to suggestions made. D1ofBerks (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Your best bet is to sift through the page history of Chirp. Everything is still there in the history; nothing has been hidden or deleted. You can also investigate the page history of your own sandbox, but you were the only contributor there. Good luck! Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Why?

You said this "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Carson, North Dakota, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)" to me yes I did change Jimmy Fallon's page but that was o prove to teacher that wikipedia is a great website. Everything on Carson is true how would you know if it is right? Have you ever been there? I have I used to live there and I visit there alot! So I would like you to please tell me what was incorrect about Carson's page. Thank you TSlag32 (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)TSlag32

Disrupting Wikipedia to prove something is a violation of WP:POINT.

The wording you added was promotional, puffing up a local business. Promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Newly arrived Japanese revisionist editors

• [3] Please don't threaten people with blocks or bans just because they object to how an article is written. Cla68 (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That new editor does not merely object to how the article is written. That editor is a Japanese revisionist, the sort of person who tries to Right Great Wrongs by starting with a huge falsehood. That editor is here to show that Japan was Asia's best friend from 1937 to 1945—a ridiculous notion. That editor is WP:NOTHERE; same with her meatpuppet friend. Neither one of them is going to have a long successful Wikipedia career. Nationalist Japanese right-wing revisionists are worse than the plague. Binksternet (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, I'm growing concerned about this particular editor as well. It seems clear to me he has an agenda at cross purposes with the purposes of Wikipedia. From his user page, I suspect meat puppetry is taking place as well. I appreciate you helping to keep an eye on him. --Yaush (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. The most problematic new editor is a woman, by the way. There's a lot of offsite coordination going on, with this new opinion article written by a female member of the Google+ group Voices of Japanese, the opinion text including a URL pointing to the problematic new user named LoveJapanChika. The Google+ group is filled with comments which fit the profile of right-wing Japanese nationalist revisionism, for instance, one person named Skales Sibbons says "Japan freed Asian countries during the war and suffered persecution afterwards."[4] What nonsense! A group moderator named Chikako JTU (meaning Chikako of Japan Translation USA) wrote on November 16 that "Skales and I have found a valid legal defense NPOV argument for Iwane. We have formally presented it on the Talk page of this Wiki article",[5] referring to Talk:Iwane Matsui, a discussion page which was edited on November 16 by NipponSun7 and LoveJapanChika. The opinion piece was commented upon by Chikako JTU who said, "Mariko Ikeda has published the first in a series on anti-Japanese online propaganda. Her investigative report is about VOJ's own Skales and Chika and the forces of darkness they've been fighting..." on Wikipedia.[6] So we know that LoveJapanChika and NipponSun7 are coordinating their POV attack by way of offsite interaction. If some admin doesn't block these two very soon, the case must be brought to WP:ANI. These two are WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia, and they plan to bring in more of the same. The WP:BATTLEGROUND effort ought to be stopped as soon as possible. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigilance, Binksternet. I haven't had time to look at the articles or the Wikiproject, but just checking out your links, as well as the very frank calls on User talk:LoveJapanChika for people to "help and bring their friends" is enough for an indef block of that user per WP:NOTHERE. Done. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC).

Thank you very much, Bish. You did the right thing. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a heads up--though you probably have seen this already--but this series of posts by Chikako JTU and this edit on LoveChikaJapan's talk page both imply she's planning a lawsuit against Wikipedia. This, of course, touches on WP:NLT, but should it be reported at this stage? Michitaro (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen both of those comments. The NLT solution is to block the editor but LoveJapanChika is already blocked. There is nothing to do at this time. I'm not worried about whatever legal case she is cooking up; it would be thrown out of court for having no basis. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Or possibly a lawsuit against me? It's a bit vague, and I agree there's nothing to do at the moment. I can't make myself care, so far… if they should become more explicit about lawsuits, I suppose I'll remove talkpage access. Bishonen | talk 17:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC).

I can't tell for sure if Aemathisphd is in on the meat puppetry or not, but he seems at least sympathetic. But I may have a bias against people who are determined that one of the first things you know about them is that they have a Ph.D. --Yaush (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I have a merit badge, does that count? In any case, Aemathisphd is a good egg, a professor teaching the Holocaust, not Holocaust denial. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Relieved to hear it; I'll cut some slack. Perhaps he didn't recognize the significance of the spurious anti-Japanese bias tag he reverted back into the article. --Yaush (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I did not. Thanks for this -- it clarified things a bit. Aemathisphd (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC) (Hey! I have a Ph.D.! Where can I get me one of these "merit badges"?)

Incompetence page

What exactly do you dispute about my edit? There were two components: 1) Making the types of incompetence sub-sections 2) Making them grammatical.

Do you dispute that (for example) the term "Language Difficulty Incompetence" is ungrammatical? If you do not like my synonyms, why not add your own instead of leaving the grammatical errors. Steeletrap (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You removed the vanchor templates which help the essay to work. You don't have consensus to change the essay. Binksternet (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Continued edit war... on Slipknot

Hi again – sorry to bother you, but you told this guy to go to the talk page and stop edit warring. You restored my edits to Slipknot before the page was protected, and the moment the protection went down, you know what happened? He's gone and reverted my edits again. I tried talking about this on his talk page about three weeks ago, but he basically said that I was ruining his edits, that mine were wrong, and that I was unnecessarily taking out things that he deemed necessary. He never really give a proper explanation as to why he was reverting my edits. Again, I don't mean to bother you, but this guy just won't quit, and whilst I am trying to learn how to do an RfC as you said, as well as try and be cool and calm about this, I don't see how it will stop him. I don't think he understands that other people can actually edit the page.

I'm not trying to dob this guy in or anything, but you know the system better than me – and this guy is edit warring, and won't go to the talk page. Could you please help me? I'm just trying to do what's best for the article. Thanks – with regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You both are of the opinion that you are doing what's best for the article. With a style-based dispute like this, nobody is right. However, the status quo should be maintained in the absence of a new consensus to change the style. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, Binks. 4TheWynne (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Binks – this isn't so much about an edit war, but about the two new members of Slipknot. The same person has now put on a source claiming that their identities have again been leaked. If this is so, can I please add them to the band members section (and, again, restore the edits to the section that this person has reverted) and the timeline? Ever since I looked at this source, I've been itching to put them in and put the timeline how I want it (which is basically how it was when I first edited the article). Thanks – with regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the source is gossipy but more sources will quickly pick up on it and publish. I've known all along that Venturella and Weinberg were touring with Slipknot (I keep my ear to the ground in the world of touring audio engineers) but the Wikipedia rules needed to be followed. Once their names were published in a reliable source then we could put them into the band article, and the band into their biographies. But they are not necessarily band members; the only thing that has been published is the fact that they are touring with the band. That makes them touring members for sure, not official band members. It also leaves unanswered the question of how much recording they did for the recent album. Today's news scoop doesn't address that part. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

In case you're interested in this sort of thing, here's an interview of the pissed-off drum tech named Norm Costa who posted the Slipknot personnel list. The interview is from July, long before he got fired and got revenge. It gives a little bit of an inside view of what a roadie thinks about his gig. Binksternet (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Revert of edits on Complex Systems

Hi Binksternet, thanks for the revert for an edit with no sources. Did you happen to notice that the section I edited, that section also has no sources? Did you bother to revert those edits, too? In other words: The entire section, if not the whole article, is a pile of horsehockey. But you revert me, well done, Wikipedian. Have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.26.122.51 (talk • contribs)

Sounds like more of that article should be thrown in the bit bucket. Binksternet (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

So? Revert me but not your fellow editors? What's the matter sport, you enjoy reverting anonymous editors, but other editors, who also post with no sources, you think it is ok to let them stay? Hypocrite! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.26.122.51 (talk • contribs)

The problem is that lots of Wikipedia was written in past years by people who were just shooting from the hip, like you did yesterday. In recent years the bar has risen, and the policy of WP:No original research is enforced more vigorously. Ideally, all that older text has been filtered through the lenses of subsequent editors who would have changed or deleted poorly written stuff. So the idea is that the surviving text has the blessing of everybody interested in the topic. Of course this idealism of mine doesn't hold up everywhere; at complex systems the initial contributor's flawed text has remained largely undisturbed. Yesterday I removed a paragraph that looked like it was not based on the literature. If you see more of this kind of stuff, feel free to remove it. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Good answer, thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Possible Sock Puppet

Hi Binks: I don't know what you all over here on WP consider a sock, but the behavior of this one user's contributions strongly suggest a lot of experience with wiki which wouldn't be expected in an account so new. I saw his new account because he removed information from registered sex offender Doyle_Doss's page. Any help you can render as always ! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I will check into this. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is new territory for me; I tried to strike the right balance at the Doss biography by referring to the Megan's Law website which certainly lists him. Regarding whether B.U.H. is a sockpuppet or merely an experienced editor starting a new account, I cannot see the harm, but I will keep an eye out. I am pretty sure his intersection with Doss was merely part of being a recent changes patroller, since he shows a string of edits reverting very recent additions which he thought were problematic. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no thoughts on the possible sock puppetry, but I had to revert the revert of Doss's criminal background just now. And something about the whole article as originally written reeks of self-promotion. Still, his company was mentioned in NYT, so I don't think I can say he's not notable. --Yaush (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we talked about this issue 15 months ago, including a link to the AfD which came up no consensus, effectively keeping the article. The NYT mention is hard to ignore. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The NYT article is straight from his press release. The writer even says that he saw the press release and contacted the maker. Doss is not notable except in his own mind. I still have trouble believing that other editors couldn't read/see what was in front of their eyes. The only reason he has an NYT mention is that he sent them a press release and they called him back. That's not notability - that's product placement. His products are only available through his website. He uses the wiki article to impress people, and given that he is formally listed at Megan's and everyone up here knows what he did only makes the continued presence of that article a festering wound to people who have been harmed by his actions - not the least of which the under 14 year old rape victim. Perhaps I failed to be forceful enough 15 months ago - but this guy doesn't deserve to be listed as notable at all ever, despite the ONE listing in NYT. Geeze if that's all it took to be in Wikipedia as a notable, I have a photo of myself from NYT (from the accompanying article) on my website. Research the rest of me and write me a really snazzy biography... high points: four times on cover of Good Housekeeping, multiple publications including a Facts-on-File book, etc. I promise you it will be a lot more interesting and a lot more notable than the article under discussion. PS the editor who started this page, has a long history of blocks and odd behavior, for example see here. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hotter than July

Hi Bink, thanks for your recent edit on Hotter than July I was gonna do some cutesy thing like here's a plate of cookies for you but I don't know how to do it; so if I find out I owe you that plate of cookies OK? (: Rihanna-RiRi-fan (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought! Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

WHY do you lot allow to keep pop-funk when the source doesn't explicitly call it pop-funk; the correct thing should be pop and R&B as there is more R&B on the album than funk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.225.225 (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Silverchair and grunge

You recently reverted my change to the Silverchair page. I need to clarify that I wasn't trying to be biased here. My reasoning for the change was that "grunge" seems like more of a label rather than a genre. It seems to me like more of a label given to hard rock/metal/punk/alternative bands from the Seattle area during the late 1980s and early 1990s rather than its own genre. Silverchair, being from Australia and releasing their debut album in 1995, didn't really fit this label to me. They seem like more of one of the so called post-grunge bands emulating the Seattle sound. However, you have been editing Wikipedia pages much longer than I have, so if you feel I am wrong, let me know and I will not make this change to the page again.98.23.14.214 (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You and I can sit down over some brews and talk about what we think are the right genres for Silverchair but Wikipedia goes by published reviews rather than the opinions of editors. If you can show that published reviews do not describe the band as an early grunge phenom growing into post-grunge as time went by, then you should change the article text. Right now, the article text says that the band was grunge at first. If I look at the sources will I find this idea supported? Binksternet (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The vs. the in band names

My change to Led Zeppelin's page has been reverted at least three times now. All I did was capitalize the T in "The" for The Pretty Things as it should be in the section "The Biggest Band in the World: 1971–75". Their band name is "The Pretty Things", not "Pretty Things". They are similar to The Rolling Stones, The Hives and The Killers in this regard. I even cited the band's official website in my most recent edit where it is displayed as "The Pretty Things" on their welcome page. You pointed me to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names that states:

"An authoritative source will determine whether the word "the" is part of a band's name. For example, it should be included in the case of The Velvet Underground, but not in that of Black Sabbath. For articles named after a band, a redirect (or disambiguation) should be created with the alternative name (with or without "the")."

The band's name agrees with the example given in the second sentence, I fail to see why the "The" in their name should not be capitalized. It's even listed on their page here on Wikipedia as "The Pretty Things", not "Pretty Things". If the band's own website and its Wikipedia page don't count as "an authoritative source" to back up my edit, what does? Jamrhein71 (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, the definite article the is most certainly part of the band name. Nobody is denying that. Instead, your attention was directed to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article) which says that the definite article the, when part of the band name, should be presented in lower case in running prose. The guideline says that "the word 'the' should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose" and it gives as examples the Beatles and the Moody Blues, two bands which are usually styled "The Beatles" and "The Moody Blues" when their name appears at the beginning of a sentence, or is first in a list. So if the name of the band occurs somewhere else then it starts with lower case the. However, names of songs and albums retain their capitalisation, to make some like the following:

• One of the albums by the Beatles was named The Beatles, released in 1968.

This style was argued over the course of months, with plenty of people saying it should not be implemented, but many more people saying it should be. The style follows exactly the Chicago Manual of Style and many more respected publishing houses in Great Britain. It does not follow some other style guides and other publications' in-house style. So there ya go: Wikipedia decided to streamline things so that only of those two style would be used. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Please help explain NOR to a Swede

I'm having a great deal of trouble explaing WP:NOR to an editor who... keeps adding NOR to weather of northwestern California. He keeps trying to compare this town to that town, even after I explained it a couple times, he got haughty and now just reverts my edits. (Boring!) Commons is so much simpler. Don't ever hesitate to ask me for help over there; you're so helpful here! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I did more than explain; I removed a bunch of NOR violations on other articles he touched, and I directed him to comb through his contributions to remove more of them. If he doesn't work to understand the problem then he's not going to last very long here. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for any indiscretion caused by my previous angry choice of words, however the deal is that I will not write (demonstratingly) a single word (not even referenced) aside from the always-referenced weatherbox in the future. I will also never again touch anything on this Wiki of your precious California. I can also even vow never to visit your state if you want to. What I really didn't like was the threat of a ban if I retrospectively didn't submit and change everything I did. You surely don't have bots who can selectively keep sourced materials for that even if you were that desperate? So, just move along from here. Lommaren (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be more constructive to continue with your factual climate descriptions based on references, while ending (and retroactively fixing) your unreferenced climate analysis. My strong words were intended to get your attention, which it appears they did. I did not want to cause an overreaction. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Who stole feminism?

You didn't address this source before your removal. I can use it standalone with direct quotes if you like. And here, although Hirshman accuses Sommers of stopping in the middle of a sentence, it is Hirshman who doesn't seem to have read through the entire quote from Blackstone. For Blackstone, having noted that the old common law allowed to husbands the power of "domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children," goes on to say that, "But with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second, this power of correction began to be doubted; and a wife may now have the security of the peace against her husband" I thought paraphrasing would be better. --DHeyward (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion off my talk page since the issue is of interest to more people than just you and I. Binksternet (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverting of changes to the "In Your Eyes" song page

To be honest I've no idea why you removed this, next time it might be a good idea to explain how my contribution is any less relevant than the rest of the section about the South Park episode. I've no idea whether you know this episode, but the song "Shock the Monkey" is clearly chosen to further accentuate the awkwardness of what Stan is doing and you clearly see how embarrassed Token and Wendy are, because of the racist implication, even if it was unintentional on Stan's part. So, to be honest, either the whole section about the South Park episode should be removed, or you include the whole (bad) joke and not just the part that you deem acceptable. South Park is known for his crass humour and as such a joke like this is pretty common and it clearly has to do with replacing "In Your Eyes" with "Shock the Monkey," so it is as relevant or not as the rest of the section.Die-yng (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You added your own interpretation of the scene, calling the playing of the song a "racist attack". Your take on the matter is interesting but if you want to put it into Wikipedia it must have been published somewhere first. See the guideline at WP:No original research. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not write it was a racist attack, I wrote it "seemed" like a racist attack in the context of the episode, Part of the joke is that it only seemed to be racist, but you don't even seem to get that. And are you seriously trying to tell me that you need an interpretation for that or that it is only my interpretation? It is exactly the intention of choosing that particular song in that situation. You don't need to be a reviewer or particularly smart to see that.

Bottom line, you don't like my addition for whatever self-righteous reason (maybe it has to do with political correctness, which obviously has no place in South Park)and you decided to remove it. My addition doesn't need any more of a source than the rest of the section, since it is what everyone can plainly see in the episode in question. I highly doubt you've ever seen it, as you would know that I'm right if you did. Considering that, I think you are not fit to judge this matter at all.

Fact is fact. The joke is intended that way, it's not my interpretation of the joke, it is the joke.

With an attitude of senseless control like this, it is no wonder that Wikipedia's reputation is getting worse and worse and that less and less people want to contribute.Die-yng (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the link to a youtube video of the scene, you can clearly see how it plays out by their expressions as simplistic as they may be: http://southpark.cc.com/clips/154303/shock-the-monkey in addition there's also the episode summary on the South Park wikia http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Raisins the problem is that this is so obvious that no one bothers much to write about it. There really is no other interpretation, I hope you can see that when you watch the clip.Die-yng (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't link to youtube uploads that are copyright violations. I changed your link to the official one.

I've seen the episode and I think the kids over at Southpark wiki are wrong about the song being "unintentionally racist" in this situation. The "monkey" in Gabriel's song is jealousy, not a black cartoon character. The character who is "shocked" in the scene is Stan! Of course Southpark pokes fun at racism and everything else—that much is true. At any rate, Southpark wiki is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, and the bit about the song being racist is not supported by better sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter Gabriel - So

User Shikari 123 seems determined to keep changing the genre of this album from pop rock to pop. I know you have reversed this change recently, as I did before, but I have had to do it again. Please can you help me keep an eye on this page or start a discussion about this. Rodericksilly (talk)

Yes, it's time for a talk page listing of sources and what they say. That way everybody can see what the general trend is for So as an album. Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Little Saigon, Washington D.C.

Bink,

Thank you for your note. As you can see, this is my first entry with Wikipedia (which must be very frustrating to you). Original research will be removed from the Little Saigon text, as is required, and understood. However, the remaining information is both verifiable as well as offers a neutral point of view, in accordance with the Wikipedia policies. How do I obtain the text that was added previously today, and can this be reposted without the original research?

I recognize Wikipedia's search for objectivity, and as a graduate student have strived for the same in my work, of which the Little Saigon article is one of. Given this, the work that remains from the article is verifiable and offers a neutral point of view, whereas the simple existing redirection of Little Saigon to Falls Church does not. How has this come to be? The Eden Center, which is located within Falls Church, may be considered a 'Little Saigon', although I have not found verifiable research that claims Falls Church, in it's entirety, is Washington's Little Saigon.

I am very interested in continuing this dialogue with you, particularly because this is a project for my graduate program, and the term is coming to completion. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, is this the best format for dialogue? I appreciate your assistance in enabling me to make objective contributions to Wikipedia.

As a side note, I would like to make a separate Wikipedia page for Little Saigon, Arlington, VA rather than Washington D.C.. I have not found information supporting the presence of a Little Saigon existing in Washington D.C.

Sincerely, Aaron (afrank8) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrank8 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Aaron, I started your article on Little Saigon, Arlington, Virginia, removing the personal interviews and any facts that were dependent on them. Feel free to expand the article further, with WP:Reliable sources. Please place your citations after punctuation. I think I may have missed some of your page numbers, for a book that is cited several times but with different page numbers each time. A good idea for this article is to add some photographs. Best wishes for your school work! Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Another thing that can be done is to add a section about Arlington's Little Saigon in the main Little Saigon article. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Bink, thanks for your assistance - this is a great start! Your suggestions are noted. I have some gems of photographs that were donated for public purposes directly to our project team, so copyright is not an issue, although they will be cited correctly. I'm still learning the Wikimedia uploading format and need some of the forms completed. I'll continue to update the page as need be. Another general question - I notice this doesn't have high priority in Google search results - is there a relationship here? Afrank8 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not surprising that a new Wikipedia article has little impact on Google searches. To increase the visibility, you should add a summary of the article to the Little Saigon page, and you should add links to the page at other, relevant, Wikipedia pages. Otherwise your new page is an WP:ORPHAN. Just now I added two project banners to the new discussion page at Talk:Little Saigon, Arlington, Virginia. That will make the article show up on the 'radar' of people who are interested in the Vietnam project and the Virginia state project. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

190.12.151.237

One "final" warning is normally sufficient. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Too often I give a final warning and then a subsequent AIV report a few days later gets no action. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Revenir

I see you have nominated Revenir for deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenir I feel the page is notible enough because of their frontman being from a very notable band. I would like to discuss it if you're open to it. Sorry for bad spelling. Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PacoDaKing14Sportz (talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not nominate it for deletion, I just tagged it with a template saying that the article, as it now stands, fails to show that the band is notable. Read WP:BAND and see if you can satisfy the requirement there. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

My last edits on Umbrella (song) article

If you think that my changes on this article is vandalism or something, please write detailed explanation (item by item) what's wrong I doing. You can see my changes here (1) & here (2).

• Edit 1: You early wrote: “Your suggested text is filled with original research …”. I think it maybe refers only to Music video -> Synopsis section, but I don't understood what's wrong in other sections in my edit.
• Edit 2: You early wrote: “Rv poorly cited text, promotion”. I think that sources which I use is appropriate (link to video on YouTube (this link also in main Info box, i.e. appropriate), link to production company -> Nabil Mechi (official Web site, i.e. appropriate)). If link to Nabil Mechi is promotion than for example: link to official Rihanna web site on Rihanna article is promotion too. What's difference is? Υμβρελλα (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You never answered the question about how the image meets or fails the guideline at WP:NFCC#8. You must show that the image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Otherwise it's eye candy, and not worth Wikipedia getting sued by Rihanna's people. That's why Wikipedia has guidelines about copyrighted images. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I still thinking that this image pass WP:NFCC#8, cuz' without this image section is less understandable.
BTW, I asked you NOT about this image. I asked you about other my changes which you can see here (1) & here (2). Υμβρελλα (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss the other changes you wish to make as long as you continue to push the screenshot ever since May, and for which you have been repeatedly blocked. The screenshot is the first problem, the one that will keep you editing or get you blocked again. Everything else comes after that. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

IP/genres

Greetings pal. I'd appreciate some pointers on how to deal with a persistent IP who keeps bulk-changing genres without sources or edit summaries. Namely this guy: 1, 2. For two straight days all he keeps doing is changing the genres for Stratovarius albums, en masse, as well as revert-warring. Should I go straight to RFPP and request semi-protection for a while, or is there some other avenue? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it started yesterday, so it's not a long-term vandal. I say request protection for all the affected articles, making as strong a case as possible, pointing to the two IPs doing the same stuff Both IPs are from Brazil but one is at the coast and one is inland. It's possible the person traveled in between sessions. It's also possible they are both proxies, and the person is not even in Brazil. Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

An ANI you may be interested in

Note that you haven't been explicitly named in it right now, but you are referred to here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

GENRE WARRIOR ON THE LOOSE!!!

Bink, there is an unknown genre warrior who comes from GREECE. I am starting to revert ALL of his edits that he has done. JG Malmsimp (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the work of this person, recognizing the Greece IPs. Binksternet (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Dina Rae

Yeah and by the way; stay the hell off of my Dina Rae page that I've created you got a problem leave me out of it R&B and Hip hop Music (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• plus, don't even revert my edits when you haven't got a clue to what you're doing such as It's About Time as you clearly haven't read the source. R&B and Hip hop Music (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

About article Battle of Nanking

Hello user Binksternet

When I read article Battle of Nanking, I see user CurtisNaito rewrote this article before [7]. But I think this rewritten is poor quality. For some significant example, at first, he changed the of Japanese casualties from 6,000 soldiers killed and Thousands more wounded to 1,953 killed in battle and 4,994 wounded. The problem is the previous data had some source citation. User CurtisNaito deleted these sources ("Defending Nanking" written by Askew) and data without offering any new source. Now the casualties data is totally unsourced. Actually I checked the Japanese wiki [8] and Chinese wiki [9].Both support the previous figures. I don't know why he delete the data supported by some reliable source and use some data without any source. He also changed the strength data of Chinese army from 100,000 men or 60,000 to 100,000 and deleted all source cited in this part (Shudo Higashinakano, The Nanking Massacre: Fact Versus Fiction). He changed Japanese strength from 240,000 men to 50,000.

Then for an important topic Nanking Massacre in this article, he also made some huge change. Previous article claim "Over the following six weeks, the Japanese troops committed the Nanking Massacre, commonly known as the Rape of Nanking. The duration of the massacre is not clearly defined, although the violence lasted at least until early February 1938. Estimates of the death count vary, with most reliable sources holding that 40,000 to 300,000 Chinese civilians were massacred in this period." Now it became "Though the Japanese also committed random acts of murder, rape, looting, and arson during their occupation of Nanking, military historian Masahiro Yamamoto notes that of the more than 40,000 corpses buried in and around Nanking after the fall of the city only 129 were women or children which suggests that the large majority of the victims of the massacre were adult Chinese men taken by the Japanese as former soldiers and massacred." I knew there is a large scale debate for this topic but I don't know why he delete all data supported by other sources and kept only a Japanese historian who claimed "40,000 corpses buried in and around Nanking" Then I really dislike the claim "only 129 were women or children which suggests that the large majority of the victims of the massacre were adult Chinese men taken by the Japanese as former soldiers and massacred." It seems like : oh,this is not an terrible event, there is only 129 women or children were killed. At least, I think he should at least mention the data from International Military Tribunal for the Far East which is 200,000. I plan to recover something from this article but I tried to avoid editing war so I write a message to you. I hope you can also check these problems. Miracle dream (talk)

Higashinakano is a right-wing Japanese nationalist Nanking massacre denier, so I don't think we should give so much importance to his figures. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry,please check the change in this article [10].This article is more like a right-wing than before. Previous article did not use any figure of Higashinakano for Nanking massacre. It used the his figure for Chinese army number. If you don't think we should use so many figure from a nanking massacre denier, do you think we should keep this article like this "military historian Masahiro Yamamoto reports that the Red Swastika society estimated that of the more than 40,000 corpses buried in and around Nanking after the fall of the city, only 129 were women or children, suggesting that the large majority of the victims of the massacre were adult Chinese men taken by the Japanese as former soldiers and massacred." Please check this part[11].

Ok, I list these changes to you.

1. Change before:　 Estimates of the death count vary, with most reliable sources holding that 40,000 to 300,000 Chinese civilians were massacred in this period.（Source from Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi and James Leibold）

Now: "The Japanese also committed random acts of murder, rape, looting, and arson during their occupation of Nanking, though military historian Masahiro Yamamoto reports that the Red Swastika society estimated that of the more than 40,000 corpses buried in and around Nanking after the fall of the city, only 129 were women or children, suggesting that the large majority of the victims of the massacre were adult Chinese men taken by the Japanese as former soldiers and massacred." (Source from: Masahiro Yamamoto)

2. Before: Chinese strength 100,000 men (estimate by Ikuhiko Hata), 60,000–70,000 men (estimate by Shudo Higashinakano)

Now: Chinese strength: 100,000 men (No source, all sources were deleted in this rewritten)

3. Before: Japanese Casualties: 6,000 soldiers killed and thousands more wounded (source from Askew, Defending Nanking: An Examination of the Capital Garrison Forces)

Now: Japanese Casualties:1,953 killed in battle 4,994 wounded (No source, all sources were deleted)

4 Before: Japanese army strength: 240,000 men Now: 50,000 men. Both were no source supported.

It seems the article is more like right-wing article now than before. Miracle dream (talk)

I am not try to use figure from right-wing denier. I try to prevent right-wing denier delete the war crime and wight wash the war. I cannot understand why this article delete all reliable source and figures from reliable source. The consensus in Nanking massacre article is figure from 40,000 to 300,000. Now someone deleted these and keep the lowest figure. Add detail from right-wing denier. Based on neutral attitude, we should keep all figure not just something from right-wing.Miracle dream (talk)

Moreover, you think someones' sources are unreliable. But the problem is the article became totally unsourced now. Most of figures did not cite any source, It was totally original research. Do you mean we should keep original research and reject any sources most of which are not from the right-wing historian you mentioned.Miracle dream (talk)

I don't know why Miracle Dream chose to post this here. When it comes to the Nanking Massacre death toll estimates though, which seem to be the main outstanding issue, I used the appropriate consensus of both leading scholars and Wikipedia users, as noted here.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It's About Time you got your facts right

http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/review/christina-milian-its-about-time read that it calls the album R&B and not dance-pop or urban-pop which are not sourced anywhere in the article R&B and Hip hop Music (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You are banned, MariaJaydHicky. You should not be trying to make changes on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not her; I see you're accusing other people of stuff like you're accusing me of it R&B and Hip hop Music (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Got Skype I can prove it with the cam R&B and Hip hop Music (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a banned editor

Check my IP address. (PaddyDaly (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC))

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Report Binksternet for harassment. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Singer

I just wanted you to know that Seth MacFarlane is primary a singer since he has two albums and sings numerous times with orchestras. I just can't believe you can say he isn't a singer. (2605:E000:87C2:3200:9D79:5AA6:CFC4:5044 (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC))

I don't get why you're reverting my edits since he clearly is a singer. I just don't get it. (2605:E000:87C2:3200:9D79:5AA6:CFC4:5044 (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC))

He's much more famous as an animator, producer, actor, comedian and TV host. His singing is a second-tier effort. Nobody ever writes "singer Seth MacFarlane". They write other things such as "producer/actor" and "Family Guy creator". Even when he sings they don't call him a singer.[12] The fact that he sings is important to his biography but not at all important to the world of music. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Three years of work down the drain

Excuse the rant: I update these musical equipment sections out my free time for enjoyment. I know they are helpful to young musicians who are curious about some of the technicalities and gear choices that go into creating their favorite sounds. I'm glad to pass down some first hand knowledge I've gained from working with some of these individuals, either in the studio, or on the road as a technician, but unfortunately, I guess Wikipedia is no longer the place for that. On a free public encyclipedia third party contributors no matter the accuracy are no longer viable resources in their or your eyes, I suppose. No room for the un-sourced. How do I source what I've held in my hands? It at first made me angry that you once again deleted my Ben Shepherd and Josh Homme contributions, because these things are a product of my dilligence and expierience, but then it just made me sad. I'm sorry I don't meet this website's or your standards. Maybe I just shouldn't have bothered. You've lost a worthwile contributor. I'm not square sourceable, however, I guarentee you I'm reliable and accurate, but like I said, I just do this amateurally in my free time out of enjoyment in the knowledge I might help somebody find their own sound in learning someone else's. Maybe I'll just pass my information along to another place, maybe a fan site, and link to it on here while making sure I'm as hypothetical as possible in explaining the link, just not to miscontrue the possible concieved credibility of it. Maybe I'll be appreciated elsewhere. I don't hold anything against you, you seem to be very much helpful around here, but I guess you have to shit on some guy's parade every once in a while, for the sake of being consistant. In what I brought in knowledge I lacked in Wikipedia etiquette, and I guess the good one can't cancel the bad one out. Feel free to undo your revisions if you feel so inclined, because at the end of the day, I am accurate. I'm not wrong, vulgar, or a nuissance. If not, and you want to be a jerk about it, whatever. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.142.7 (talk • contribs)

I am just a guy observing this talk page. You seem quite sincere, unsigned editor. I will assume, for the sake of discussion, that what you say is accurate. But how can our readers verify that what you say is accurate? You don't even bother to sign your posts. Perhaps, instead, you should consider writing a detailed article and submit it to a reliable source. Once published there, such an article can be cited here on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

My response is similar to Cullen's: I say submit your work to a magazine such as Guitar Player or Electronic Musician and get it published.

Back when Wikipedia was just starting out, a lot of information was added by people like you who were sharing their knowledge, using Wikipedia as their first method of publication. This was happening despite the policy of WP:No original research being put in place in August 2003. As Wikipedia matured, less and less sharing of personal knowledge was allowed, and more of the encyclopedia was held to the verifiability policy. The trend continues; if it wasn't going to be me who removed your work it would have been someone else, eventually.

One minor point about your expressed motivation: you said it was to help young musicians. It's well known that Josh Homme does not share the details of his guitar equipment because he doesn't want other people to copy his sound. So there's at least one guy who would be harmed by publishing the carefully documented details. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Special greeting...

Fun! Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

User: 63.92.228.217

Hello Michael, I note that you have issued a couple of warning to the above IP user, this evening (UK time) I have reverted a mass of unexplained changes, overlinking and just plain stupid editing. I really think it is time for further action. Whilst writing, have a good holiday season. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

My friends call me Bink.

Yes, this person made a bunch of edits very quickly. I looked through quite a lot of them and many were acceptable. I reverted the ones that were not. I notice that the very first edit by this IP was a taunting "I'm still here" at WP:ANI, which is a really bad idea. Must be someone who got blocked for disruption. I look forward to another block of this person. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User talk:SpriteMusic

Your edit to User talk:SpriteMusic seems to have been malformed. It tells the user to respond somewhere, but gives a garbled location for where the response should be provided. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah. The template has a cell I was supposed to fill in, one naming the sockpuppet master. I did not know the master's name; I only know about a continual string of IPs from Greece. When SpriteMusic arrived today, all of the edits were the same as Greek IPs – a continuation of the same stuff. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyhow, thank you for your noble efforts to combat unconstructive changes to Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, this 'noble' effort of mine looks like a friendly fire casualty right now. I was stopping some Greek IPs but this new editor is doing the same stuff as a Pennsylvania IP. I will go apologize. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That Greek genre warrior returned to UNEXPLAINED CHANGES to Scooter. I need your help.

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked on SpriteMusic's works, and in his edits relying on Deadmau5, he adds trance, whereas the Greek genre warrior (the annoying one) adds TECHNO into almost all of his works, just to make House music extinct from Greece and Wikipedia. JG Malmsimp (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 12:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Happy Hanukkah, Joyous Kwanzaa, Merry Christmas, and Happy Festivus, Binksternet. This community owes you a debt of gratitude for your work on song genres. May you win many more bugle awards. Steeletrap (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Mary Catherine Lamb

Hi, Binksternet! Again, you come riding to the rescue of newbies!! I'd like to help the editor/creator of this article edit it to conform to Wikipedia standards, but before I get in touch with her, I'd like to know what the status of the article is at this point. I assume it has not gone through the "Articles for Creation" vetting process, correct? I also assume that the editor will need to put it in the queue to be vetted, after she's had some assistance in removing the primary sourcing and making the tone more neutral. Also correct? And should I encourage her to create a user page? Thanks, as always, for your help!! Ailemadrah (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The status of the article is that it is an ordinary article in main article space. It appears the article creator felt that it was ready for prime time, which it largely is, with the caveat of having to trim it of original research in the form of the interviews. So it would help to ask the article creator which sentences or facts were based on interviews and are not found in any published material. Those should be removed.

So it doesn't have to be vetted, just trimmed. She doesn't have to create a user page; it's not a requirement. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Ailemadrah (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your work in helping protect Slipknot and other articles from vandalism, I present you The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Thank you for your tireless efforts, and for helping me out along the way. Merry Christmas! 4TheWynne(talk to me) 22:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Genre warrior from Greece (Athens?)

Bink, As you know, I am reverting ALL of this Greek genre warrior's edits, constantly on Sash!, Scooter, and many more. This vandal constantly removes sourced genres and putting his genres of his own desire, such as "RAVE", "PROGRESSIVE" and mostly "TECHNO" Until we can find out who the real vandal is, I'll just revert, and revert, and revert.

Thanks

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I have to wear earplugs just to read this, heh heh...

When I see a Greek IP on those articles I will know what to do. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Some of the IPs involved:

• 79.166.140.255 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Contributions/79.166.240.224
• Special:Contributions/79.166.198.244
• Special:Contributions/79.166.13.139
• Special:Contributions/79.166.26.18
• Special:Contributions/79.166.107.202
• Special:Contributions/79.166.75.10
• Special:Contributions/79.166.109.7
• Special:Contributions/79.166.125.45
• Special:Contributions/79.166.72.76
• Special:Contributions/79.166.132.52
• Special:Contributions/79.166.113.45
• Special:Contributions/141.237.124.133
• Special:Contributions/141.237.143.154
• Special:Contributions/141.237.253.195
• Special:Contributions/141.237.14.80
• Special:Contributions/141.237.123.100
• Special:Contributions/141.237.145.177
• Special:Contributions/141.237.32.117
• Special:Contributions/141.237.168.97
• Special:Contributions/141.237.102.241
• Special:Contributions/141.237.130.55
• Special:Contributions/141.237.149.124
• Special:Contributions/141.237.186.86
• Special:Contributions/141.237.186.186
• Special:Contributions/141.237.92.93
• Special:Contributions/141.237.99.181

That will help identify future activity. Binksternet (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A new one. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• 5.55.243.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

More questionable Japan history edits

Just in case you hadn't seen this, but a new user, Silverstring3, has been creating articles which all define the comfort women as camp followers. I've tagged them all for citations needed and/or for disputed content. I also added a warning on the talk page of Seiji Yoshida after reverting quite contentious and badly sourced material added by this user. Michitaro (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.72.46 (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 on armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the World War I Christmas truce 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) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

95.63.68.121

Hello!!

I'm User_talk:95.63.68.121 and I can't edit in wikipedia.

Wikipedia says that you have taken the decision to block my IP because I have put a link to a site that was connecting with a youtube that does not have the copyright.

I was not knowing that this site did not have the rights.

I have spoken with the administrardor of the site and already the youtube has changed for other one that has the copyright.

Is it possible to raise the blockade?

Thank you for your work and I ask for pardon for the problems that I never wanted to cause.

(This text has been translated into the english by a machine. Sorry for the inconvenience) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.63.68.121 (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

RE: User talk:85.23.210.157

Hello. It's me, the guy who "changed" the genre on ...And Then There Were Three... Except I didn't. The article didn't, at the time, display any genre at all. So I wrote in "Progressive rock". Was that so bad? Now it's categorized as "Pop rock", without a source. I don't really mind, but if you edited it, aren't you practically blaming me for something you did yourself? After all, the genre(s) before were listed as "Progressive rock, soft rock". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.23.210.157 (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Innuendo article

Hey there, I'm just posting here because you undid an edit I made to the Queen - Innuendo page.

Your edit note stated that the source for my changes to the recording dates were unreliable, I'm just wondering what your threshold for "unreliable" is in this situation. Queen's verified Facebook page has been posting a lot of images from their archive lately, some of them being information sheets that are filled out for studio recordings of their various songs. One of the images they posted is a sheet marked December 1989 from the album in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Innuendo_%28album%29#Recording_start_date.3F

I've talked about it a bit more on the album's talk page if you want to have a look. If the Facebook posting is unreliable, what would it have to be to be considered reliable? Or on the flipside, what's the source for the recording to have started in March 1990, as opposed to late 1989?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.154.208 (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings and Good Wishes
		Best wishes for the season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope your holiday celebrations were rewarding, and I wish you good fortune in the coming year! Binksternet (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Shallow Alto

Briefly -- I am the chap who put up Shallow Alto as a nickname for Palo Alto. I understand that it is not entirely constructive but surely that is not required of a nickname? It is in provable use and that's enough. The nickname Berserkly is vaguely derisory but is up there unmolested..

I would be grateful if you could reconsider this. By the way, my US home town Santa Cruz was once known as 'The Murder Capital of America' but that really is not constructive and way out of date and I would hesitate to add that. I'll leave it to you. Please keep up the good work. Nigel

The first thing you will want to do is find a reliable published source using the nickname. Binksternet (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

	Merry Christmas!
	Merry Christmas Binksternet, blessings and best wishes for 2015! MarnetteD|Talk 19:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Best Christmas wishes, Bink. --Yaush (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! All the best to you and yours. Binksternet (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!!

Greetings and wishes for happiest holidays !! When you have a chance could you review this which popped up due to image upload of subject of biography. See you when all the happy dust settles, have a great one! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheers! I will take a deeper look at this person's work. It appears at first glance to be a whitewashing of a biography, but I would want to find out if the changes are justified. Binksternet (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

African American

I invite you to join the debate on the definition of AA in view of the criticisms I have raised on the talk page. AA=black American of African descent. Though most Africans who are not of sub-Saharan African descent are not "black," some are. Therefore, the new definition (which limits AA to sub-saharan african) is not only inconsistent with the federal definition but is sociologically inapt.

Americans of African descent who are perceived and identify as black (such as Nubian Americans) are African American for all intents and purposes, even if they are of North African rather than sub-Saharan African descent. I recognize that "black" is a nonsense concept biologically, and also vague sociologically. But nonetheless, the definition of African American is grounded in the concept of blackness. As the cited sources indicate, the term means black+African+American. In view of these considerations, I hope you agree with me that it is time to re-open the debate on the proper definition of AA. (For the record, I agree with User:Middayexpress that we should also prominently take note of the more biologically sensible definition of AA: namely, a person who descended partially or fully from African slaves in America. Steeletrap (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Greg Phillinganes

Hey Bink, have you happened to come across any good articles about Greg Phillinganes in your travels? I've done some googling and have a tentative list to begin working on his article, but there's not a lot of great stuff out there. Next I'm going to start digging through back issues of keyboard magazines. The biggest question is the uncited statement about Stevie Wonder listening to his work on cassette—I can't find any sources about that. The one source I did find appears to be written from the Wikipedia article, since our text was here first. --Laser brain (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

When I searched for pre-Wikipedia sources (limiting the range of publication dates) I found something in a 1981 Black Music & Jazz Review, volume 4, page 13, which says that "Greg's break came at the ripe old age of eighteen, when he was asked to audition for Stevie Wonder's Wonderlove band." It doesn't say anything about cassette tapes, but the Wayback Machine provides us with a clue: The soulwalking website in your link has a pre-Wikipedia version archived here, from November 2002. (The Wikipedia biography was born two years later.) Good luck expanding the bio; to me it looks like little has been written about Phillinganes. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks so much! Keep an eye out for some expansion coming up. --Laser brain (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Cool! Binksternet (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Layne Staley

Why did you remove the "final years" and "death" sections in the Layne Staley article? Those sections should stay in the article not because he's dead, but so that people who read it can understand what he had been doing over the last five years of his life. So, please don't remove those sections again. 76.191.214.150 (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It's too much emphasis on his going hermit and killing himself slowly with drugs. If you can tell the story in one tenth the wording it would fit the article. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

AR Kane reversions

Your reversions on the AR Kane page are comprehensively unconstructive. You have reverted a good deal of substantial and cited information, mostly from professionally published articles in major publications and interviews with the band themselves, for reasons which seem to amount to your preference. What remains is a highly incomplete and unnecessarily spotty page that could be easily made better with the citations you brashly dismissed for no apparent reason. Unless you can justify these reversions with Wiki guidelines or something other than a vague personal aversion, they should not be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbrito162 (talk • contribs)

My change to the article was not a reversion, it was a cleanup task of many facets. I added wikilinks and reduced the problems with WP:NOR and Wikiproject guidelines. I removed the "experimental rock" genre which nobody ascribes to the band. I removed a fansite link and a blog link. If you would like to restore the biographical detail about the background of the two musicians, that's fine with me. I think their "kaning" term is ridiculous and unencyclopedic; even Tambala says he might be "just kidding" about that term. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Disguised vandalism

Hi Binkster, I just wanted to point out that the systematic but disguised vandalism (reported earlier) has taken place again on the pages on Chris DeGarmo and Michael Wilton, again with a different MAC address. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Limp Bizkit

Hey, got your message about the edit(s) I made in the page(s) concerned in the message. I am not proud of the edit I made cause it was hasty and it wasn't my intention to harm the article, but it happened anyway. Sorry about that. Please see here for the discussion I had.

The 'blocked form editing' is technically bullying. As a result of it, I give you the title.... WikiVampire

I am a.. WikiVampire and want to drink your blood!

DtwipzBTalk 15:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

RE: Innuendo article

I've added another section with more evidence/sourcing to the Talk page. Not sure if you receive notifications for talk pages, so I thought I'd let you know on your own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.154.208 (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Binksternet!

Happy New Year!

Binksternet,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Cheers to you as well! Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)