User talk:Binksternet/Archive35

Diplo's "#giflo" controversy

Hi Binksternet, I've messaged you in response to your revert of my edit removing the controversies section from Diplo's page. You cited that wikipedia should reflect information in it's articles from a neutral point of view. I believe that the current description of Diplo's controversy is both erroneous and biased on its own.

The first false claim is that Diplo uploaded a video to instagram containing a gif created by artist Rebecca Mott without crediting her. This was not the case, although it was falsely reported as such by many online news sites

Diplo initially recorded a 10-second snapchat message filmed with his iPhone of audio from the then-upcoming Missy Elliott remix of his collaborative Jack Ü track "Take Ü There" with Skrillex and Kiesza, accompanied by Mott's gif playing in a continuous loop on his laptop monitor in the background. Many articles then referred to this as an official "preview" and therefore led the Mott to believe that her animated gif artwork had been used as official background art for said track without her consent. When she initially confronted Diplo about this on Twitter, He initially apologized and explained that he had found the gif on a third-party website and had no idea it was copyrighted. As there was no simple way he could have credited her on the snapchat (due to snapchat messages having a very small character limit on the amount of text that can be displayed) at the time that it was sent and furthermore had no knowledge that the gif was created by a professional artist, he decided to rip the video from snapchat and re-upload it to instagram with her properly credited as the artist. Not long after He did this, Diplo continued to be harassed by many users on Twitter, claiming that he "stole" the .gif intentionally and was refusing to give Mott any credit or compensation whatsoever. In a response to one of these accusations, Diplo made a rather rude sexual joke which was later characterized as "sexual harassment" directed towards Mott by many other gossip writers such as those on Gawker. Diplo later apologised on a lengthy "long-tweet" response in which he both explained that the entire situation had been blown out of proportion by gossip news sites and that the initial conflict had been resolved long before many of the articles were written. He explained that his joke was both tongue-in-cheek and that he would have never made such a comment to Mott directly. He also defended himself, claiming that it was also not his responsibility to credit the artist of every artistic work that he films in such brief snapchat messages.

As this proper timeline of events is not very well documented due to many biased and outright false claims made by authors of editorials whom merely copied the reports of others, it led to even further confusion as the snapchat message was later referred to as a "teaser trailer" and even a "performance" by some news sites. Other sites had entries that claimed that the instagram video was in fact the original video, making no mention of snapchat and asserting the claim that Diplo had uploaded it with no intention of crediting Mott. This is an outright fabrication and should not be stated as truth on Diplo's wikipedia entry. However, as it would be difficult to find proper citations of all of these events in order other than the individual tweets and their respective timestamps, I recommend that the "controversies" section added to Diplo's wikipedia entry be removed entirely, as similar petty controversies have emerged in the past without any acknowledgement.

I hope my explanation has shed some light on why I believe that my edit was unbiased rather than being based in and of itself, and that regardless of whether or not the section stays that it should be heavily modified to reflect the proper timeline of events, rather than the false timeline perpetrated by many tabloid and gossip news articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzywuzzy (talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears you disagree with published accounts because your interpretation of events is different. The way Wikipedia works is that published accounts are what the articles are based on, not individual interpretations—see WP:No original research. Several respected music magazines published stories about this controversy; these are not tabloids or gossip rags. With so many publications commenting on it, the controversy is significant. Your removal of significant negative controversy, well-cited to mainstream music magazines, is what I called a violation of WP:Neutral point of view. I still feel that way. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating references

You may enjoy this one. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that was an extreme example of promotion! Speedied. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Another fascinating reference

This gentleman's picture says he's the emperor of Spain. His userpage is even more interesting. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: edit wars

I agree that an edit war is bad. This is why I am reasonable and am willing to discuss things. You were BOLD (WP:BOLD) and changed things. It was reverted. A discussion was taken to the talk page. However, you then reverted the revision, starting what looks like an edit war. I recognize I am risk of being blocked, along with you, if you start an edit war

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. . However, judging on actions, I think you are at greater risk than me. Mburrell (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Binkerstnet, if you look at the 2015 talk page, the section you started, you would see that I agree with you that we should get rid of the genre column. I am just asking for a week or two for a discussion. The changes you are making are hasty and difficult to undo if you make the wrong decision. I am not attacking you. I am asking for more time for others to give their opinions. Please be patient for two weeks, and then if we have a consensus, delete the genres.Mburrell (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:List_of_2015_albums#Delete_all_genre_columns is primarily about genres of albums that are released and reviewed. That discussion is not about what I'm removing from the list article.

Genres of unreleased future albums cannot be in the encyclopedia because the genres come from third party reviews. Future albums do not have reviews. That is why I'm removing future genres. Do you see that you are restoring unverifiable text? It's a violation of WP:V, one of Wikipedia's core policies. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome!

I tried real hard to create a compliant article: User:JChandanais/WBTM Productions. Sorry, if I missed something. I used a similar page on Wikipedia as my template and rewrote my own content as fill. Could you please, if you remember the page, tell me what i did wrong. I wish to comply and not be deleted. JChandanais (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The first thing is that you should be able to write your article based primarily on WP:SECONDARY sources. If your article is based only on primary sources then it fails to prove notability. Please read the general notability guideline at WP:GNG to see what constitutes "notability" in Wikipedia terms. The second thing is that Wikipedia is not here for your promotional efforts, so any blatantly promotional article will be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

LGBT parenting

I don't agree with removing the flags. It works better with flags, as a template, it seems to order itself better.--86.3.200.81 (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You can start a discussion about it on the talk page of the article, and see if more people are for the flags than against them. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

SPI clerk

Saw you put in for training. I'm interested too, I hope it goes well! :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we will get desks close together, so we can pass notes. ;)

Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

LOL, and dip the pony tails of girls in ink wells... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

They are probably going to seat you in the front row with the other troublemakers, so there will be no ponytails involved.

Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Heh! Nothing I'm not used to... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• By the by, serious Q: If you get CheckUser or SPI Clerk ability, will this interfere with your right/ability to file SPI reports? That wouldn't be a conflict-of-interest, would it (unless you CUed a report you filed), would it? Softlavender (talk)

Good question. I see people involved in CU initiating investigations themselves, and even endorsing for CU themselves. Another checkuser must perform the check, though. I'm sure I will be allowed to file new cases if I don't clerk those cases. Binksternet (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky. Thank you.Ashantisantos (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sakes. This is ludicrous. Look for the WP:BOOMERANG. --Yaush (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Partial revert

Probably you did not intend to restore the lede (hope that was the case) when you restored the Oklahoma city bombing material. In any case, I have removed the lede content until we have restored the Islamophobia characterizations to the article's body, after which we can take a stab at summarizing something for the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sock

Feel like SPIing this obvious sock? C.Cleeve and his IP: [1]. SPA endlessly spamming wiki with wikilinks or pointless spam about the surname "Cusack". I'd do it myself but you're so much faster and can do this in your sleep. By the way, I already warned C.Cleeve on his Talk page. Softlavender (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The guy is annoying with his slow-motion edit-warring behaviour but his socking is not yet so bad that it needs to have a case page written about it. The main reason is that he is not trying to evade a block (having never been blocked); the second reason is that the edits are coming in slow motion, for instance at Cyril Cusack he made his preferred edit three times, once two Octobers ago, then simplifying his style for late February this year, and another simplified one a week later. I will warn him against violating WP:MULTIPLE, that is, inform him he must restrict himself to using his registered account and not edit the same articles while logged out, unless you have a better plan. I am definitely up for filing a case page at SPI if the problem escalates. Binksternet (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree an official WP:MULTIPLE warning is also in order; however in at least one case he replaced his deleted Cusack-wikilink edit after logging out, apparently in order to evade detection. I've removed all of his spam "Cusack" wikilinks in various articles. If they re-appear, or if spam mentions/descriptions of Cusack get added to any further articles (see: Special:WhatLinksHere/Cusack) by the master or any other account, then it's time for a report of one or the other sort. Softlavender (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Janet Jackson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Janet Jackson, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. wia (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

SIOA

What are you talking about? Why do I have an obligation to fix the problems I identify? And how does WP:SOFIXIT have anything to do with this, let alone edit warring and suppression of legitimate tags? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Look Binky, in the past several months I've been churning through lots of crappy articles and identifying and tagging problems. This is a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. I don't have the time or inclination to fix all of them. In this case, I have discussed the issue at length with a fellow editor, just in case you didn't notice. The fact that this fellow editor has a serious IDHT problem is not a basis for removing the tag. Your edit warring is unprovoked and inappropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do you continually act as if you wish that article be permanently labeled? You will have noticed that Template:POV instructs against using it as a badge of shame. In general, maintenance templates are to alert editors to fix a problem. If the involved editors cannot even identify an actionable problem then that is a clear signal of somebody, you in this case, wishing to display a badge of shame. You have had seven weeks to indicate a specific problem but instead you bring up vague "I don't like it" concerns. The "valuable" contribution begins to look like sour grapes. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

What basis do you have the accusation that I wish to have the article be permanently tagged, or that I wish to use the tag as a badge of shame? Where are these phantom "I don't like it" concerns? How can this or this possibly be interpreted as "I don't like it?" Are we on the same planet? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting. Your failure to answer leads me to question your good faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Rust In Peace?

I know it wasn't the best information but many critics have label that album as the greatest metal record of the 90s. That being said, I hugely think that something based on that should be on it's wikipedia. I saw many top heavy metal albums of the 90s and Rust In Peace is always at number one so I was wondering if I can add that. I don't want to sound like a fanboy or anything because I am not that hugely into Megadeth but I think such a claim like that should be supported and added it into it's wikipedia.( Mikeis1996 (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You can search for sources saying that the album is one of the greatest. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality closed

An arbitration request regarding actions of some editors in the Christianity and Sexuality topic has now closed and the decision can be read here. The following remedies have been put in place:

1. User:Esoglou and User:Padresfan94 have been site banned. Both users may appeal their bans after one year.
2. User:Roscelese is indefinitely restricted from making more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. They are also prohibited from making rollback-style reverts without providing an explanation, and from engaging in conduct that casts aspersions or personalises disputes.
3. User:Dominus Vobisdu is admonished for edit warring. In addition, they are restricted to one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss content reversions on the article talk page. This restriction may be appealed after twelve months.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

Timeline situation

Hey man. I have so much respect for you and getting stuff done right. You were part of this discussion: here. I took a couple hours tonight, going through his contributions list, and "fixing" every timeline to a scheme we agreed upon. 3 hours later, and he's started reverting them back. Using edit comments that have nothing to do with colors so it looks like that's not what he's doing. And making one minor edit somewhere else, then changing all the colors. Was it not clear from the talk that we agreed to use the old scheme? What can we do to stop this? (PS - Sorry if this sounds scrambled together, I am quite frustrated right now) — DLManiac (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

See Metallica, Sheppard (band), Prototype (band), Foo Fighters. Not one of his edit comments includes color info. And for Metallica for example. He writes "content fix up", adds three words about an image in the article, then changes all the colors. It's madness. DLManiac (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

sorry to bother you once again. But he gave in. (Well almost). He stated that Prototype would be the ony one he ever reverts any more and that other than that one band, this can all be Over. So I'll let him have it. I'm so happy to not have to fight this battle anymore. DLManiac (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

We should ask for some uninvolved closure at the RfC, so that everybody knows where we stand on colors. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't "given in" at all. I just don't want your head to explode. I wouldn't call the result from the discussion a consensus, as it only involved about six editors and that number should have been a lot greater. The only real outcome would be, as Binks said below, that people know where you stand (because, again, nothing was set in stone). But going through my contributions wasn't cool. We all have our own opinions, and sometimes they might differ. But I didn't come here to get bossed around. I never "stated" that Prototype would be "the only one I ever revert any more". Let it go, mate. ^(talk)4TheWynne^(cont) 22:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

May I quote your edit comment "Restored for this one ONLY; this matter is now settled". Going through your contributions wasn't cool? Neither was starting that discussion and then deciding that you'll only take other people's opinions into account if the discussion turned out the way you wanted it to. Why do I have to be the one to let it go? I am trying to unite wikipedia. You're trying to "leave your mark" and make it look pretty for yourself. THAT's not cool. — DLManiac (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, I agree we should get some closure. Tell me what I need to do, and I will do it to get this sorted out. — DLManiac (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: "Editor Interaction Analyzer" is so inaccurate to be almost useless

Hi Bink, I noticed this tool [2] on your userpage a while ago and checked it out using myself and the editor I have co-edited with by far the most frequently. The tool was totally off the mark. I have collaborated on approximately 100 or so articles with Ssilvers, usually within a very few minutes of each other. Not only are only 18 of those articles showing up (and most of the articles that show up are the ones we didn't collaborate on), but also the edit count is way way way off, usually by a factor of 10 or more.

PS: Intersect Contribs is somewhat more accurate, but it doesn't give actual interactions, purported edit counts, or purported minimum time between edits.

I'm just letting you know this because you seem to use that tool in SPIs, and also because you are becoming an SPI clerk. Sincerely, Softlavender (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that tool is terribly flawed, as it misses too many edits, but it still has some usefulness in that it might show me where to look further. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Syngenta

I don't know if you have kept Syngenta on your watch list, but there are some mass deletions going on there, in particular on the section you had kept an eye on before. I think it might be useful for you to keep an eye on that section or article again. Softlavender (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved this time around, but I'll note it seems to be the same argument that you and I had last year - the other authors are deleting hotly contested statements that those on one side of the ideological aisle are likely to believe are factual, and those on the other side are likely to believe are slander. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Zoolander/Seventh Son edits

Hi Binksternet,

I concede that it is unnecessary to include actors' names in the plot summaries of these films. However, I stand by the grammatical and punctuation changes I've made. Word choice is subjective, and you can revert those if you'd like, but it is factual that periods and commas belong inside quotation marks. I hope that you include those changes I've made.

Thanks,

Lookoutbelow1321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookoutbelow1321 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Placement of punctuation with quotation marks is covered by MOS:LQ. --Yaush (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick Question

When people edit the capitalization of genres of a band, should it be reverted for being unnecessary? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scar_Symmetry&diff=644688683&oldid=641008984 the edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKruger13 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

In the usual genre list, the first entry is capitalized but the subsequent entries are not. This instruction can be found at the very bottom of the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists where it talks about bulleted list items and also non-bulleted. The normal genre list is not bulleted. The link you show demonstrates the correct style for Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding user:64.203.49.244's vandalism

User:64.203.49.244 has repeatedly vandalized music pages with unsourced genres and incorrect ratings. On March 2, you wrote on the user's talk page that any more vandalism would result in his ban. This user has vandalized Hail to the Thief, The King of Limbs, Amnesiac (album), and Come a Little Closer (Cage the Elephant song) with unsourced genre changes since then. I don't know how to ban this user myself, so I am informing you so that you can take any disciplinary action necessary. Yes, I am snitching. I've been reverting his vandalism every week and hopefully you can put an end to this. Here are the user's contributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.203.49.244 Thank you. Eklxtreme (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I've done what I can, which is report the guy to WP:AIV. Nobody will "ban" him without knowing a full history of disruption, and I'm not an administrator who could block him for whatever period of time. Let's see what they do over at AIV. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Another article rather light on references

Greetings again, As before I am not expert on music, please see Showtek. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The duo is notable because a song of theirs charted. I don't get the urge to trim the article or expand it. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Socking

http://tools.wmflabs.org/intersect-contribs/index.php?project=enwiki&user1=Leprof+7272&user2=71.239.87.100&sort=0

Socking plus massive tagbombing, often with threatening edit summaries. Not sure which is more unfortunate. Softlavender (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Claims of Consensus

Hi Binksternet, I noticed your claims of edit warring against consensus on the page New Kadampa Tradition. Consensus was not reached ever in regards to the edits I was reverting (actually there were more people against the edits when it was brought to NPOV). I have tried to have dialogue on the matter, but have received none and continued reversions. Do you have any advice on how I could better go about fixing this misrepresentation of consensus? Prasangika37 (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus was reached. The only one who is misrepresenting things is you.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Prasangika37, consensus was reached but it your wishes did not carry the day. Essentially, consensus was reached despite your protests. In this case, consensus was not unanimous. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I have documented it back on the talk page at New Kadampa Tradition--There were 5 people who were either against or wanted some more discussion and less that were 'for' the current intro. I am not sure how you can interpret 'consensus' ?? Prasangika37 (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

El Segundo, California

Thanks for stepping in there. I'm at 3rr now. It looks like there is some socking going on along with a misleading username. John from Idegon (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Heyduder is socking as ESmayor1 and also editing logged out as IP 38.122.21.154 from Cogent Communications. I asked for page protection, but even the page gets protected, it won't be forever. I think Heyduder is doing a little local booster action, promoting the place. If he keeps socking he'll be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The protection is up for 15 minutes and already 38.122.21.154 is adding a picture Heyduder uploaded. My access to the net via computer is very limited and my phone can't handle something as complicated as a SPI case. If you have the time would you open one? You can list me as a party if you like. John from Idegon (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, the image is a copyvio. I just tagged it for csd. File:ElSegundoWaterTower.jpg John from Idegon (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I asked for page protection again. I wonder what to do as a next step? Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For all your hard work and for making Wikipedia a much more better place and hopefully a sock free place too! Whitney Ford 12:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Why, thank you for noticing! I would certainly like to see a sock-free Wikipedia – blocked means blocked – but I don't think that will happen as long as we champion the notion of an encyclopedia "anyone can edit". Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Un-cited revisions to Chicago House page - possible edit warring - please help

Hello there! I wonder if you can help? I am concerned about recent edits to the Chicago house music page by Grassman0 and IP 108.27.48.244 - both are inserting "dub music" as a stylistic origin of the genre, without sources, and I'm uncertain about this. I have contacted user IP 108.27.48.244, who appears to be moving into an "edit war" situation over the matter. I have left a message on the user's Talk Page, with no reply so far. The Chacago House music page currently stands with the unsourced edit. I would be grateful for your intervention/advice.

(Etheldavis (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC))

Right! We're back to people not using references, shooting from the hip. I have reverted the "dub" addition. I appreciate your keeping an eye on things there. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Riot kiddo

I saw talk page archive that he/she accused. Can you keep an eye on him/her if he/she may disruptive repeatedly in the future. 115.164.52.81 (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know...

• I moved your ANI thread to a better venue. Have a nice day. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Perfect! Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have added you as a party to a request for arbitration.[3]

Dear0Dear 00:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll dress my best, wear a hat. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I got to know you since you warned me about my disruptive editing. You did a great job here at Wiki. Thank you. Anonyman101 (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Kercher

I believe this page uses British English throughout, you may want to revert your recent change. pablo 13:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

SIOA

I did not remove that they have been called such a thing. I just moved it to by the SPLC criticism and removed the IB Times which is a low quality reference. How DARE you accuse me of not being neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Sergeyevich Gasparov (talk • contribs) 05:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Binksternet. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not get any delivery of your mail. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Dangit, I don't know what this problem is with my mail. Anyway, it's nothing particularly private; I think the new guy's probably a sock, I have a guess as to whose, let's keep an eye out. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my alertness is high on this one. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I 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) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

2 RfC's on Dorje Shugden controversy talk page

Please see the 2 RfC's on Dorje Shugden controversy talk page [4] & [5]. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a lot of source material to wade through. To settle the subtle WP:WEIGHT question, I would have to invest several hours in research before offering my opinion. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Or just read the article for 5 minutes. Maybe @Joshua Jonathan and CFynn: can take a look.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Genre warring

A user is genre warring in this article and is disregarding warnings. I was wondering if you could keep an eye on this and intervene as you see fit. I don't want to violate 3RR. Thanks. Caper454 (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see a huge problem with the other person's addition of a genre supported by AllMusic. I have tweaked the article and it's now on my watchlist. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. This goes against prior consensus that Allmusic should not be used as a source in such instances. Caper454 (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

AllMusic prose reviews are good sources. The sidebar genre list is not a good source. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

YES, that is precisely my point. That editor is using the sidebar genre list and not a prose review for sourcing. That's why I had hoped you'd back me up. Caper454 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The prose review says Newman was in a grunge/alt rock band, then he was in a power pop band, then his New Pornographer songs "became staples of the crowded 21st century indie rock scene." So as a New Pornographer he is in the indie rock genre, which is probably why Bathes made this series of edits to the biography. The same AllMusic source could be used to say he was alt rock and grunge during his time with Superconductor, and that his solo music has influences of baroque pop and folk pop. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of historical figure's religion

Hi, Bink - I am not nearly as experienced with Wikipedia editing as you are, so I am hoping you can explain the rationale for removing the identification of Alice Paul as a Quaker. You say she is not famous "as a Quaker." Is that a standard for mentioning a subject's religion? It makes no sense to me. It seems obvious to me that Paul's efforts and achievements as a suffragist reflect her Quaker heritage (descendent of William Penn), education (Swarthmore and in England both), and lifelong connections (she retired to and died in a Quaker residential facility in Connecticut). Her dedication to women's equality reflects Quaker theology and her methods (direct nonviolent action) reflect Quaker practice. Here in the Philadelphia area, where I live, she is certainly known and remembered in that way, including at her home Meeting in Moorestown, NJ. I question your rationale for insisting on deleting this identifier. PDGPA (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Peter G a/k/a PDGPA— Preceding unsigned comment added by PDGPA (talk • contribs) 20:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course all of the biographies of Alice Paul tell us that she was raised a Quaker. They say her Quaker childhood was very important in the formation of her views about equality. At her adulthood, though, she stepped outside of the Quaker community to advocate prominently for women's suffrage. From this point, she was not described as a Quaker, not described as going to Friends' meetings, not known for espousing the Quaker faith. It was only late in life that she accepted the offer from a Quaker-run rest home, and her burial site is less about being Quaker than about being with her family. If you feel differently, then I suggest the article needs to have some prose added to describe her relationship to the Friends during her adulthood, so that the reader doesn't think (wrongly) that she was avidly a Quaker during her adult life. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful response. Unless I discover something different on the subject, I will defer to your greater experience -- and thus presumably more reliable intuition -- as to what is appropriate on Wikipedia. PDGPA (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Final word

Hey, Binks. Listen, I just wanted to know how you felt regarding the earlier discussion which sort of fizzled out. If nothing was set in stone, do you think that it's OK to continually have my edits reverted regarding these colour schemes? OK, so things might have been in favour of a different scheme, but a proper consensus was never really taken away from that discussion. If I've spent the amount of time that I have implementing a scheme onto a handful of pages, and there's nothing saying that I can't continue to do so, surely that can't hurt? I mean, the red scheme in question might be more common, but it's definitely not used all over the site. Would it be wrong if I re-implement the scheme on a few pages? Do you think that it's wrong that whenever I try and do this on a page, it keeps getting reverted? I'd really like to have this scheme on the pages that I had it on before, especially if there's no reason why I can't. Nobody else had a problem with the scheme being on most of these pages for quite a few months. Anyway, I just wanted to know your thoughts, even if your standing is different to mine, because you're someone I know I can trust, and I value your opinion. Thanks – with regards, 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

At the discussion I was open to all possibilities, especially including your color choices, and the position I took was based solely on what I thought was best for the most viewers – an aesthetic decision. Others probably chose based on the same factors. The fact that your color scheme was not supported by anybody else in the discussion tells me that you should not keep trying to implement it, that you should not continue to push it. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

About Musical genres

Hi, I wanted to answer you about the things I changed. First of all, it is not "changes to suit my own point of view", those genres on those artist have a consensus that they are what they are (ie, people know Young Americans have Funk songs in it... As a sound engineer (I am too), I guess you acknowledge that.

Second of all, my sources can be found in Wikipedia itself (ie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bowie#1974.E2.80.9376:_Soul.2C_funk_and_the_Thin_White_Duke the title iteslf said Bowie had a funk era... but it not listened in its records nor in its "genres" in his personal page)

I don't do this because I only see it like that and no one else does it. Everyone knows that and, since it isn't on Wiki and genres are so confusing sometimes I decided to clarify what I can.

Sorry for my english and sorry if this is not the page to answer to your removals.

Manuel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocowainfeld (talk • contribs) 16:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there is at least one song—"Fame"—on the album which has been described as incorporating funk, perhaps Bowie's funkiest-ever composition.[6][7] However, the album as a whole is not described as funk. It appears that you and I are approaching the genre of an album differently. I think that an album's genre is an overall genre used by published reviews to describe the whole effort. It seems that you think an album's genre is a basket containing all the genres of all the songs. I disagree with that strategy very strongly. Since the Wikipedia article is about the album, the sources should be describing the album rather than describing the songs within it. Certainly we can use prose in the article body to tell the reader that one song on the album has been described as funk, but I don't think we can assign the funk genre to the whole album, using the infobox genre parameter. Binksternet (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Insistent Dub Editor At The Chicago House Page...

Sorry to bother you again, but I could really do with the help of an experienced Wikipedian over at the Chicago House page! Do you recall Grassman0 making the assertion that "Dub" is a stylistic origin of Chicago house? Well, an IP address (69.120.194.67) is now making the same assertion, very persistently. I have communicated with this editor (is it Grassman0 in a new guise, I wonder?) but I am unsure of whether or not to simply allow their edit (they have come up with an obscure reference I am unable to check). If you could stop by and have a look I would be very grateful!

(Etheldavis (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC))

I'm keeping an eye out. I'm concerned that this IP editor is doing the same things Grassman0 was doing. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am too. Thanks so much for your support. I'm not very experienced when it comes to dealing with matters such as this, but articles like Chicago house are important to me and It feels very important to maintain facts and consensus.

(Etheldavis (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC))

April 2015

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked this IP for 2 weeks. Please let me know if he gives you further trouble after his block. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will certainly let you know. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Tim Zukas (LTA)

Please see here and here. Thank you. Centpacrr (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see here and add your comment. Thank you. Centpacrr (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No Matter What (Badfinger song)

The criteria set by WP:SONGCOVER are quite stringent, aren't they. Do you think the editor who added them is aware that sources are required? I'd be surprised if some of those deleted were not discusssed in a source. Particularly this one:

• The Knack - for the album Come And Get It: A Tribute To Badfinger (1996). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Finding a source is not enough to satisfy WP:SONGCOVER. It might be true that sources discussing the tribute album track might help the Knack version meet SONGCOVER; I don't really know. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth at least making the editor aware of the requirements? They might be keen to search. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussing regarding "Operation Starvation"

If you don't intend to continue this discussion, after a reasonable period of time I will change the article back to how it was. The other user who replied does not appear to intend to continue discussing it. 2601:8:9780:1EE:4058:55D0:A1B1:D756 (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad idea. You have no support from other editors for your desired inclusion of original research. Again, I recommend you read the Levie book and draw directly from that. There's still the question of appropriate WP:WEIGHT devoted to an aspect that very few writers wrote about. Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a good thing Wikipedia isn't a democracy then, isn't it? I apologize for not looking up the Levie book, but I doubt it contradicts the available texts for the Hague Conventions or the fact that Japan and the US are both parties to it, and were during WWII. I also doubt that it lists some treaty that Japan and the US have signed that states that the Hague Convention is no longer valid, or that there are situations where it doesn't need to be followed. I further note that in many other situations, the US has followed international agreements such as the prohibition by the UN of war and therefore blockades; ships from the Soviet Union were allowed to reach North Vietnam during what's called in the US the Vietnamese War, even though they were broadcasting the times, positions and destinations of US bombing flights (which the US was either reluctant to admit to, or didn't admit to, due to the prohibition of war by the UN), and Soviet ships going to Cuba during the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis were also allowed after they had been searched for weapons. To avoid "edit warring", though, I will give you a chance to reply before reverting the article in question. 2601:8:9780:1EE:1CFE:53C:4ED0:76B2 (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Continuing on talk page, so that any other interested editors can see it. 2601:8:9780:1EE:1CFE:53C:4ED0:76B2 (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, but I don't feel like waiting. Are you going to respond? Talk:Operation_Starvation#New_section:_Legality 50.135.249.113 (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You will be waiting until there is consensus for your preferred version, which does not look like it will be soon.

As you indicated by saying "continuing on the talk page", the article talk page is where this discussion should take place. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment at Talk:Operation_Starvation#New_section:_Legality. 50.135.249.113 (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edits to

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edits to the Reggae en Español article. Did you object to any of what I did, was the reversion aimed at someone else, or was it some combination of the two? If you do object to something in my edits, would you please be so kind as to tell me what it was?—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I intended to do was revert the IP editor who was evading a block. Your contribution looks good on its own. Binksternet (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. ^_^ That's what I thought might be the case, but I was a little confused by your edit comment, so I thought I'd check.—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse

Hi, Binksternet,
I noticed two big edits, this and this, on this page and it wasn't clear to me what the criteria was for removing editors from the list. Could you give it a look? It looks like you've also edited the page. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like PhantomTech removed a bunch of case pages that he had recently archived as inactive, and he also removed the HeadleyDown case which is not archived but has been inactive for two years. As well, it appears that PhantomTech added a case which was active as recently as last October. So it looks like proper list maintenance to me. You may also want to ask PhantomTech directly.

Yes, I have edited the page, which is a separate discussion. I added two cases back in June 2014, then three weeks ago I added three and removed two. I will gladly explain my actions further if you wish. Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I just wasn't familiar with this editor and you have a lot more edits (144K vs. 5K) so I thought I'd ask you since you last edited the page. Thanks for taking the time to look into it for me. It's a page that's on my Watchlist (I did some category work on the page) but this is the first time it popped up as having been edited. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence

Hi, Binksternet. You realize you only have about three hours to post the evidence in the Collect case that you apparently wish to submit? (Assuming I have the time zone thing right.) I don't think posting a header for your evidence will "keep" the place for you; when the evidence phase is over, it's over. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC).

No worries. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Block templates

You may wish to see this discussion, apparently you are allowed to now. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Dang. Thanks for the link. Binksternet (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit filter

Hi Binksternet. There was an edit filter request from Black Kite for an filter related to the Techno genre warrior from Greece. Since BK is currently on a break could you check that the edits the filter caught are indeed this user, and if not how it could be narrowed? The most useful edits to check are since 15 March since I made a change then to avoid some false positives ("techno" already being in the article). Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I will look into that right now. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have checked the log page of your filter, and it shows a ton of positive hits. I see only solid positive hits, not false positives, so no need to further tighten the filter.

The filter allowed some edits by the vandal, including unimportant changes such as upper-to-lower case, but also important changes to the genre:

• 79.166.48.33 was caught by the filter on three of six edits. The other three edits were removing house genre, swapping acid house for rave genre, and the same again.
• 79.166.85.105 was caught by the filter 10 out of 14 edits. The other four were changing electro house to techno (where techno was already in the article), removing hard trance, changing hard trance to disco, and removing trance.
• 141.237.40.160 was caught by the filter one out of five edits. The other four were changing house to disco, changing electronica to rave, removing electro house, and removing house.
• 141.237.20.36 was caught three times adding techno, but less than a minute after performing a filter-triggering edit, the filter did not catch him putting a second instance of techno into the article. However, the filter would have caught this if it were attempted as one edit.
• 141.237.10.44 was caught four out of eight times. The filter missed changing house to Eurodance, adding techno to an article that already had Technotronic mentioned, removing a flatlist template (but this followed a trigger edit), and changing house and hip house for pop.
• 79.166.204.230 was caught six of seven times. The filter missed him changing hard trance to disco.

Those are the results from after 14 March when you tightened the filter. The kind of false positives you got prior to 14 March appear to be useful to me, for instance this 13 March removal of house, hip house, rave, and electronica, swapped for pop, a change that did not involve the addition or removal of the word 'techno'.

Is there any intent to modify the filter to perform an action such as to disallow the attempted edit?

Thank you for your work on the filter. I will continue to monitor the log page to see what it turns up. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this was his first edit

THANKS!

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Samwalton9, for setting the filter to disallow. We still need a filter logging the actions of the same range of IP addresses, actions in which the genre is being changed. I would like to see such a log to determine whether the vandal is active. Today, filter 663 missed a handful of edits by Special:Contributions/79.167.241.40 despite his disruptive genre warring. Binksternet (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm removing techno from most of his target pages. JG Malmsimp (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Harman and Ising

Please monitor the Harman and Ising article as an editor is trying to insert a bad and uncited edit with too many typos. Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Notable DJs and bodybuilders??

Hiya Binkster! Have a gander at [8] &b [9] perhaps? Thanks. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

One I gave a user page template, the other I gave a user draft template. Now I will keep an eye on both of them to see if there is any untoward promotion. Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

American Politics 2 arbitration evidence phase closing soon

As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 14 April. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

Thanks. I will not be participating for various reasons. Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really involved, not familiar with the dispute, not familiar with the process. But, looking over the page, my eyes latched on:

And when even mainstream Time magazine acknowledges that the GOP is "fringe", ...

Holy scatalogical metaphor. Is this what Wikipedia has come to?

Just sounding off at your page for I don't know why. Indulge me. --Yaush (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence closed

The evidence phase is now closed on the American Politics 2 arbitration case, which you are a named party to. You are welcome to add proposals at the workshop. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Re KatieHepPal

Don't know if you noticed, but I went and filed that SPI, which closed with a block. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I am relieved. Good work by Mike V. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

And good sleuthing by you. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit war

.. at If I Ever Lose My Faith in You. I am sure you know full well that this may lead to a block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see that now. I have self-reverted. Earlier, I was acting as if the IP editor was evading a block, but now I see that I cannot prove such an assumption. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Arrangement is part of genre?

I saw "arrangement" page in which "popular music" section, says "Popular music arrangements may also be considered to include new releases of existing songs with a new musical treatment. These changes can include alterations to tempo, meter, key, instrumentation, and other musical elements." Clearly if it is not really means any musical genres.

I Knew You Were Trouble and Catch My Breath, as you can see there "pop rock" in the infobox and any sections with reference, in which prior review or article texts says "pop rock arrangement". 115.164.93.38 (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a song can have a pop rock arrangement by one artist, and perhaps a hard rock or country rock genre by another artist simply because it has a different arrangement. Binksternet (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Maroon 5 (Specifically Genre)

I've started this conversation to come to an understanding on Maroon 5 genres and concerning what would be reliable sources to cite genres for them and what they would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomChoiceForMe (talk • contribs) 00:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Start at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Don't use AllMusic sidebars, just use their prose reviews. If a review site has user reviews and staff reviews, only use staff reviews. If it's About.com, check to see whether the reviewer is considered reliable: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources/About.com Critics Table. Don't use Metacritic or Discogs or Rate Your Music or iTunes for any kind of musical analysis including genre. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This probably isn't a reliable source for genre but what specifically is variety.com reliable for? http://variety.com/2014/music/news/maroon-5-tops-u-s-album-chart-with-v-1201302849/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomChoiceForMe (talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Variety magazine is a well-respected music industry magazine, many decades old. It's reliable for anything it says about the music business. Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The article refers to them as a rock unit, but does the term "rock unit" refer to pop rock or just rock as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomChoiceForMe (talk • contribs) 13:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"Rock unit" doesn't specify what kind of rock. It could be straight rock, pop rock, rock'n'roll... whatever. Binksternet (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm just still confused I guess on why the genre has both pop rock and pop on it. It always seemed like Maroon 5 had done different kinds of rock with some R&B, a little funk and more bubblegum/pop in recent years (btw is there a difference between "pop" and "bubblegum" or are they used interchangably?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomChoiceForMe (talk • contribs) 19:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Simple Plan page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Andrewbf sockpuppet returns to House Music?

Hello again! I think the Andrewbf sockpuppet has returned to the house music page. I have intervened, but would be very grateful if you would also keep an eye on developments there.

(Etheldavis (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC))

Thanks, I'm on it. We're on it! Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Hello B. I hope that you are well. I just wanted to alert you to this User talk:Swarm#Note. Have a good week. MarnetteD|Talk 19:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I could have removed the post because it's a banned user, but I commented instead. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet:, in your opinion, is it correct for someone who opens an AN thread to close it again themselves? The user in question basically admitted to trolling you, then closed it. I will be happy to open it again - if it is appropriate for me to do so. It doesn't look right as it stands. ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Nobody who is involved with a dispute is allowed to close the discussion about it. Feel free to do what you think is best. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

180.191.77.2

I see you have previously added to the Talk page for this member. I believe he may be the same person as Avenged77 and keeps making unsourced changes to the genre of the "Keep On Loving You (song)" page. Rodericksilly (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I see the connection between the IP and Avenged77, and I'm working to correct his disruption. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Another situation

Hi Binks – hope you enjoyed your Easter. I've got another situation on my hands, this time at the Furious 7 page. All of this revolves around a single character name and a few edits to the plot and cast. The other user involved is way out of line to threaten me with a block and to tell me to stay away from the page. This is another one of those situations where I'd like to have a second opinion, so could you please help mediate for me, when you get the chance? Thanks – with regards, 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let me see what's going on. Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

All right, thanks for stepping in. For the plot, which version did you rollback to? 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I picked a version from April 4 which was fairly close to 700 words and then I trimmed some of the excess verbiage to make it be exactly 700. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Hopefully this issue is now sorted, but if something else happens, or if the other user disagrees, I'll let you know. Other than that, thanks again for you help. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's the diff of my plot changes from the April 4 version – focus only on the plot section to see what I did. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I can see what you've done. However, even after I fixed it so that the plot was at around 750 words and didn't leave out any essential details, you rolled it back again, reverting my changes as well. I understand that there's a word limit, but one thing that I think we can all agree on is that 700 words is too short for this particular film without leaving out any essential details, and the guideline even says, as I'm sure you're aware, that the word limit can be exceeded for complicated plot summaries. The way that the plot has now been written, following on from this, isn't of as good a quality as what I had spent ages trying to perfect, and the other editor who I told you about earlier (who decided to file a report against me and then change his mind) has tinkered with the note that you left to say 800 words rather than 700. Could you please revert the plot back to my version? Thanks – 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that this film's plot needs more than 700 words. There's a lot going on, for sure, but we don't need to represent every bit of it. It's an action film, not a psychological puzzle. In fact, the criticisms of the film are about its threadbare plot. Even people who praise the nonstop action acknowledge that the plot is thin. Binksternet (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help earlier, but now I have a different problem in the same area. I've managed to shorten my revision of the plot to 700 words, but the same editor is preventing me from "messing with" the page. In terms of readability/accuracy, which revision of the plot would you rather read – mine or his? Additionally, the editor is not letting me compromise with the whole 'Frank Petty/"Mr Nobody"' situation. He's telling me to back off, more or less like before. Unlike before, though, I don't believe that this editor means well, and that he just wants to control everything and won't take no for an answer. This is unfair and unjust. Could you please look into this again? Thanks – with regards, 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

There really is no compromise to be had; you're the one continually reverting to a name the character is NOT credited by. I'm really sick of arguing, but I don't want incorrect, irrelevant information sitting on an encyclopedia page, so as long as you keep reverting despite all my attempts to tell you no, I will continue to fix what you seem content to break. Apologies, Binksternet -- I don't know you very well, and I'm sorry this conflict spilled over onto your page. Stolengood (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As an addendum, I will not be able to respond to this conversation further for the next six to ten hours, as I am heading to bed. Just putting that out there in case any further decisions are made; I don't want them to be made, in this instance, without me -- however, I am really, really tired. Hope you understand; I'm sorry. Stolengood (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phrase

Hello Binksternet, the workshop phase on the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, has been extended to 24 April 2015. This is the best opportunity to express your analysis of the evidence presented in this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Not my favorite Romanian

What is to be done about this guy? He's now started making dumb edits to Thomas Moy, nothing in any way contentious, but deplicating material & clogging up my pellucid prose (ahem) with unnecessary numbers.TheLongTone (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. The lead section is too short—it doesn't tell the reader why Moy is notable. The article body contains a paragraph which describes what Moy is best known for; that paragraph should be clipped out and rewritten for the lead section. Once it's in the lead section there will be no need for the numbers, since the lead section is a summary. Binksternet (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the crit...I'll do what I can!TheLongTone (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Since I have named you as an affected party, I'm giving you the courtesy of letting you know there is a discussion at ANI regarding edits at Traian Vuia . Flat Out let's discuss it 06:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

187.211.45.66 isn't my IP

Hello,
I'll try to keep it as polite as possible.
First, please do your research well before accusing me of "edit warring" and putting a block warning template on the IP page. This is not my IP. I have a provider that changes them constantly. Please check it well, because I live in Canada.
Second, Melbourne bounce is a subgenre of house music since 2014, whether you like it or not. Currently, WP has a page about the dance, which is not directly related to the subgenre, and nothing on the subgenre itself. Please take the time to see other WP projects in other languages, to see how it should be done. Feel free to make proposals here or on the page talk (not in the IP I'm currently associated with).
Sorry, but you really got me upset. 74.116.189.168 (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

An Archiving question

I notice you manually archive; is there any comprehensible guide to the automatic archive programs?...and how to TURN THEM THE %$^#$$^% OFF!!! (Not that I have strong feelings here, mind you, nope nope nope nope.)

The Streetcars Conspiracy page has a couple of slow conversations that the sigmabot wants to chop into current portions and archived portions; I think there is quite enough re=stating of the same ideas without forcing more of it. Anmccaff (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Automatic archiving can be annoying, for sure. I just commented out the MiszaBot section of the talk page.[10] There's probably a setting that will not drive you crazy, but just stopping the bot for now will likely satisfy your immediate needs. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. My apologies for bothering you about this, but every damned time I ask at the "right" places, someone shows up, fixes the minor problem, and finds or creates a new one of their own. The trackless trolley page lost all its state flags like that.

So, the sigmabot works off the miszabot's commands? Anmccaff (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess so. The MiszaBot section was the only automatic archiving section I saw. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The English Gibb issue

It seems they are creating a number of accounts like here, waiting the four days, then make ten fast edits to get past the autoconfirmmed status then back to the Gibb articles, do you think we could get the Gibb brothers articles fully protected for a couple months ? that's the only thing I can think of. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the four Gibbs should be fully protected for at least a few months. There's the PogiJmon sock group from the Philippines and the Chowkatsun9 sock group from Hong Kong, so full protection will stop them both. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I've started to get a report drafted, The brothers Gibb issue, not sure where it's going to get posted at but, please add/adjust as you see fit if you want and once it's ready I/we need to figure the best noticeboard to post at, anyway thanks for any help (I'm not very good at theses reports :P ) Mlpearc (open channel) 22:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you think a report at RPP with all pages listed in a single request ? Or just ask a single admin (IDK) :P Mlpearc (open channel) 23:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Good question. There are some admins who are particularly firm with socks and disruptive IPs, for instance JamesBWatson (who is away from keyboard for a week or two), Amatulic, Materialscientist, Dougweller, and others. But let's go with RPP because it will get the most eyeballs. Let's make sure to say what percentage of the most recent edits to the Gibb bios are from socks followed by reversions of socks. It's an impressively high number. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Too late :P Your welcome to add info to the report :) [11] Mlpearc (open channel) 00:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

YAY [12]. Thanks for your help ! Mlpearc (open channel) 21:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! Let's see what happens in six months. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Genre discussion

Hey there, since you often make music genre-related edits, here's a discussion that might interest you. Some input is welcomed. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Hauge Convention synthesis

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Hauge Convention synthesis. Since the anon editor in question doesn't seem willing to listen to us I thought it might be constructive to ask for input from outsiders experienced in resolving NOR situations. Thanks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015

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 the landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas in World War I 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) 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello and thank you for all your hard work to improve music articles and to report vandalism and disruptive editing. Millions of people enjoy reading Wikipedia and it is regrettable when a small number of individuals, mostly anonymous IP users, attempt to spoil things with long-term abuse and disruptive editing.

As well as deliberate vandalism, there is an issue on a number of song articles with long lists of non-notable and poorly sourced content about cover versions, against the guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER. I appreciate the work that you do to improve things for the vast majority of online readers who want to read notable and well-sourced factual content. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. It's otherwise a thankless job, removing the text you describe from articles. My first few years on Wikipedia were spent creating content, without paying too much attention to what others were doing. It took a while to recognize the enormity of the problem of trivial content, poorly sourced content, disruptive editing, etc.

Best... Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Cause of death vandal

I see that you warned 86.180.83.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in relation to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal - what do you think of 86.180.83.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Same guy. Same location, same behavior. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phase closed

The workshop phase of the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, is now closed. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 15, 2015

Hi Binksternet. The original FAC nominator was blocked, and a summary of this Featured Article will appear on the Main Page soon. I see you were active at the FAR. I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? Has anyone been keeping up with this article since the FAR? - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for putting such a fine summary together for TFA. I see no glaring omission in your blurb. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Off Wiki

Binksternet, I just saw your page, and we grew up next door to each other. After review of your user page, I have a project that I could really use your help with, would you mind e mailing me? WPPilot@Hotmail.com Thank you! --talk→ WPPilot  21:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)