User talk:Binksternet/Archive52

RE: Scott Storch and your disingenuous reverts.

Sorry Binks, forgot to update this. took this to DR.

I hope I succinctly elucidated your line-of-argument (I think I have, and I do understand your POV, but still I think we need some fresh eyes). StorchBaby (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S. is there a way to have a different name showing up in sig but still have the same username? Like I see some guys with funky formatting every time they sign. I want to use StorchedEarth as my sig

I can see your confusion

(I also replied on my own talk page; I prefer you reply there but you can reply here.)

This is about List of one-hit wonders in the United States.

I can see your confusion. I requested to remove anything that was never put in the top 40; you pointed out (and I agree) that isn’t a good idea. The edit I made was not removing songs which never made the top 40; no the edit I made was one done in accordance with Wikipedia policy and consensus. We need to remove entries which do not have two reliable sources saying they are a one hit wonder (as per consensus on that page); I found about 32 entries which relied on a forum posting, which is not a reliable source, as per Wikipedia policy. The edit I made was not disruptive and it was done in policy, but I can see why you’re confused, since I did suggest something else. Samboy (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

That's generous, thanks. Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

"Via" is not a substitute for the appropriate preposition, verb or verbal phrase!

It's a example of crude, vulgar journalese and you are not going to impose it on articles. I replace it with the appropriate preposition, verb or verbal phrase which improves the syntax of the sentence. You reverted my edits for no good reason. If left to you, all Wikipedia articles would read like articles from "USA Today" or "Variety". I've replaced "via" hundreds of time and not one has been reverted except by you. I'm going to restore my edits again and again and again until you stop vandalizing them! Autodidact1 (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Via is one of those English words borrowed straight from Latin, like alias and animal. It's a fine word, meaning "by way of" or "through". It's a bit more specific than through, having fewer uses.

I can see how you might want to change some of the instances of via, to avoid repetition and clunky writing, but don't change all of them. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

ANI

I think administrator intervention is warranted for Bus stop's actions, so I've opened Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bus_stop_at_Talk:Oakland_Ghost_Ship_fire.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Is Allmusic reliable?

Since Discogs is considered to be unreliable, is Allmusic considered to be unreliable as well? 73.240.105.138 (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, take a look at WP:ALBUMAVOID where it says AllMusic sidebar genres are unreliable but the prose reviews by professional critics are reliable. And just like on Sputnik, user reviews are not reliable. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Trouble with article

Hello Binksternet. I'd appreciate it, if you'd have a look at Woody Shaw. There have been a number of pain-in-the-neck edits by 4 ostensibly different numbered editors. Below are the links to their contributions. All of them only edit Shaw, and all of them are very similar. To me this looks like a numbered sockpuppeteer. For openers, do you agree? (Also, your answer to the previous inquiry about All Music clarified an issue for me. Thanks!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E288:5B00:5141:27EA:B730:E05A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:184:4780:6D8:D135:B9B:1DEE:9F42 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E288:5B00:A1FB:7F8B:455C:732F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:2000:F9C3:2300:959F:94D4:73FA:763F

Regards Tapered (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The numbered editor is back with 4 new counterproductive edits. Can you please restrict the article to registered editors a la Carlos Gardel? I'm amazed that I missed the now restored excision about his death. Regards Tapered (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

It took a long time and a great deal of disruption to get Gardel padlocked. As a non-administrator I'll do what I can to protect Shaw. Binksternet (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Pardon me, Binksternet. I thought you were an admin. Please let me carry the ball on this one, if you would. Tapered (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Jealous

Beardyman is huge. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Ha! Yeah, the performance was epic. Beardyman worked hard before the event to make sure his sound was as good as possible, which definitely involved sending his high-quality vocal microphone to the subwoofers – a rare thing. The loudspeaker system we used was fantastic, being full of Tom Danley DNA. The top boxes were the seven-driver Servodrive SPL Td1s, and the subwoofers were two big cubes of twin 12" LAB horns. It was one of the clearest, deepest, best-sounding events I mixed. Proud to have been part of it. Binksternet (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Sophie

I don't really care for this article but it's seems like editors keep removing her birth name off the article, for example here. I not be surprised this from the same editor who keep doing this. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, there are some people with very strong opinions about this, opinions that go against Wikipedia consensus on the issue. I don't think we will ever see the article come to a stable state while listing Sophie's birth name. But since Sophie got famous when the birth name was connected, known and reported, we should list it somewhere in the article. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I look at several articles on transgender people and they don't have their birth names on their articles either. There should be at least a consensus or RfC on her birth name should be there or not, instead of edit warring. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to have one solution for all transgender people. Some trans folk are fine with people knowing their birth name, some became famous under their birth name, and some became famous at a time when their birth name was connected to their pen name, stage name or new name. Sophie became famous as her birth name was still being reported.

My basic stance on the issue is that we are an encyclopedia providing answers to our reader's questions. If we don't supply answers to such basic questions as listing a widely reported birth name then we aren't doing our job.

"Dead-naming" a transgender person is a much more serious problem when the person isn't famous, when the revelation can hurt them. But here on Wikipedia the only biographies we host are on famous people, many of whom have had their personal lives reported in the media. We should follow the example set by high quality media. Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. This is a encyclopedia, we should keep people birth name in the their articles despite what gender they decided to be. My point is there should be a consensus on the Sophie talk page if people keep removing her birth name off the article. I still think there is one editor using multiple accounts. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Just wondering...might you ever consider ANYTHING I do at Wikipedia to not be "disruptive editing"?

Earliler today, where I noticed the figure for one particular P-80's velocity (the one that was edited), at a time within a decade of a "top velocity" figure that was recorded by an aircraft from a former adversary of the Second World War, I would think that something of that sort might be something potentially worthy of comparison, providing it has a pertinent citation; which did exist for the "top velocity" figure for the adversary nation's rocket fighter from October 1941. Now, to be fair, this is just the very first time I seem to have "run afoul" of yourself, but I've never had any intention of doing anything deliberately "disruptive" of any sort at Wikipedia. Perhaps the edit involving the MiG-8's mention could be considered a "stretch" (which I would have retracted if so-advised), but I've never even heard from you before...I also make every attempt to seek out a decently reliable citation for any revision(s) I post, so I'm not deliberately making "repeated disruptive posts" at any time. I'm simply hoping, with all due sincerity, that you're not someone that actually enjoys doing that sort of thing, because those sorts do exist; and if you've ever "run afoul" of them yourself, you might be able to understand, even slightly, what I've been though on some very rare occasions in my own past. Thank you in advance, The PIPE (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It's you making the comparison, not the sources. That means you were violating the hard policy of WP:No original research.

You are apparently in the habit of introducing tangential information, without references or by citing a source that does not make the connection. For instance, you added some excess detail about the Fw 190 in the Boeing B-17 article which I quickly removed. In the Martin B-26 article you added an irrelevant link to the USAAF timeline which I quickly removed. I warned you about poor sourcing and violations of NOR in February 2016, September 2016 and June 2017, yet you continue to have the exact same problem. Can you tell me what you plan to do to solve this problem? Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I had a similar issue with this same user almost exactly one year ago, wherein they used their ow definitions of things to alter properly sourced content while it was featured on the main page. It seems inconceivable that someone who has been editing for 13 years would still not understand WP:SYNTH, but here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

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) 09:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You messaged me about someone undoing my edits on the SPLC

I am confused as to what is going on? I posted accurate information and it seems you are saying as long as one person is intent on suppressing that information it will stay suppressed? Everything I wrote was from Either the SPLC, the Washington post, the Attorney General of the USA, and from the people directly. Because it makes them seem less credible and biased it is just not allowed? I have never edited in here before but I have given money and I am getting kind of pissed. The first one I got what I did wrong, and didn't type directly so fixed it. All of it accurate. I can see in the talk page on it that that same guy has kept other people from editing it as well. Seems he is intent on protecting them. Not ok for a public platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.111.75 (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You are trying to wedge some WP:COATRACK material into the article, and it's a clunky insertion. Your addition did not comply with the WP:Neutral point of view policy. Binksternet (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I was listing more credible sources. For example the part that says it is credible list "cited by a number of scholars" Whereas the not credible say "pundits, politicians, and some of the designated groups" So scholars versus people who could have a bias against the SPLC for non factual reasons. That is not neutral. At all. I cited actual settlements that show they have paid millions as a result, not just people trying to discredit them falsely. I got that from the SPLC website. Actual court cases are far more credible than politicians and the people on the list. The Trump as a tool to gain donations, was in the washington post as a in depth look at both sides. The way it is now is clearly meant to show bias in their favor. Can we get the word scholar in the bottom paragraph as well? Or we just sticking to pundits. Because those are neutral statements. If you would like to type it so it is not clunky you are welcome to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.111.75 (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

When I Look at You

Can you remove unreferenced genre? Thanks. 2402:1980:248:6D9E:E06C:ECE:B1A8:7720 (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You're a Superstar in Category:LGBT-related songs

Hello. At User talk:2607:FEA8:80A0:1270:6000:A09A:1CA2:E685 you accused me of using multiple IPs to vandalize You're a Superstar.

While I assume good faith, you're mistaken. I haven't used multiple IPs on the article. Further, I only use different IPs if dynamic assignments by my ISP change automatically over time.

Most importantly, I didn't vandalize the article. I added the article to Category:LGBT-related songs for the category for good reason. Sources that "You're a Superstar" is an LGBT-related song:

• https://www.metroweekly.com/2004/06/simone-denny/ | Lead vocalist on the song performs at a Pride fest and the song is highlighted. Clearly reliable source, website of a major print publication.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKEamMpSnxM | Lead vocalist performs the song at the 2015 INSPIRE Awards, an awards show for the Toronto LGBT community. Performer introduces it as a familiar song and much of the audience sings along. It's clearly adopted as an LGBT anthem.

• https://yohomo.ca/blog/top-songs-by-queer-torontonians | Listed among "Top Queer Toronto Songs."

• https://itallstartswithasong.wordpress.com/2013/08/ Indirect maybe, but supporting evidence. The first-credited songwriter of "You're A Superstar" tells an interviewer from the Songwriters Association of Canada: "The gay community was a huge backbone globally for our records. Either we would release records for them and all of the DJs and the gay clubs would break them first before or they would crossover. It was like (Toronto radio station) CFNY to clubs. Gay clubs to straight clubs to mobile."

Thanks for your work to better Wikipedia!

--2607:FEA8:80A0:1270:6000:A09A:1CA2:E685 23:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Genres of "My Heart Will Go On"

Hi. We have been in a bit of a disagreement about the genres list of the song "My Heart Will Go On", and I think we should talk it out.

My first edit (link here) added the genres of pop, ballad, and soft rock, without me sourcing them. You reverted them. I should have sourced them, and I acknowledge my mistake.

My second edit (link here) re-added the genres from my first edits plus also adult contemporary, this time with sources. There was one source for pop and ballad (trackrecord), one source for soft rock (theawardsconnection), and one source for adult contemporary (rateyourmusic). You "trimmed" this, by removing everything except pop and its associated source.

My third edit (link here) reverted your trimming, as I believe you didn't state enough of a reason for why the genre list needed trimming. You re-revert and accuse me of genre warring. You say that theawardsconnection "does not say this song is soft rock", and that rateyourmusic is unreliable because of WP:ALBUMAVOID. As for theawardsconnection and genre warring, see the two next paragraphs. As for rateyourmusic being unreliable, I was not aware that it uses user-generated content or that it was specifically listed as an example of an unreliable source. I should have known that, and I acknowledge my mistake.

As for saying that theawardsconnection doesn't say the song is soft rock, it does say that. The paragraph starting with "Among Titanic's victories" goes on to say that "[My Heart Will Go On] is pretty much the epitome of '90s adult contemporary, a song that was all but impossible to avoid over the final years of the decade and which still garners heavy airplay on soft rock radio to this day". So theawardsconnection does refer to the song as soft rock. And the same sentence also calls it "the epitome of '90s adult contemporary", so theawardsconnection could feasibly be used as the source for re-adding "adult contemporary" to the genres list now that I know rateyourmusic is unreliable.

Please don't accuse me of genre or edit warring as I have not violated the three-revert rule. The 3RR forbids people from making more than three reverts in 24 hours, rather than three or more, so even if all my three edits were reverts I would not have passed the threshold. And of my edits, only the third was a revert while the first two were an addition and a re-addition.

To summarize: I think it was wrong of you to trim my second edit without explanation, and theawardsconnection does say the song is soft rock. However, I also made mistakes (first by adding genres without sourcing, and then by adding an unreliable source), and I apologize. I have left the article alone for now, and will not edit it for the foreseeable future unless we can reach an agreement. I hope we can resolve this issue and avoid further disagreement. Kind regards, 212.130.152.24 (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The source theawardsconnection is talking about the song being popular in a radio format. Musical genres are not the same as radio formats. Similar in some cases, but not the same. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

born to run

please stop erasing my work. I have plenty of references, I nodded off for 2 hrs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillywilly17 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry I am still learning the little stuff the references I know, I nodded off for 2 hours! sir please i can only do so much at once sorry i am out of breath i don't know if i am doing this right thanks send me email if problem dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillywilly17 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

At the moment we have a possibly CIR editor using their own knowledge and website as sources. At Born to Run they reinstated material copied from their website but added reliable sources. I've reverted them at several articles. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

See their talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinkerton (album)

Hi Binksternet. In order to be neutral, equal, and fair to all users involved, I also must warn you that you were engaging in edit warring on Pinkerton (album) by reverting QuestFour in a back-and-fourth fashion without discussion. I know that this user was just blocked for edit warring only a day ago, but it doesn't mean that we can instantly discredit their edits, nor does it allow us to repeatedly revert QuestFour because they now have "a record". ;-) Please be careful with disputes like this in the future... I don't want to see you blocked over something silly like this. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Another TP sock?

I present you with Brandnewflipflops. Also blocked 2601:680:c800:3fc4::/64. Graham87 04:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure looks like it. Good block. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

All of these are related to Tanner Goethals, TannerGoethals3, TannerGoethalsWiki and 205.122.29.92. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey. I happened to come across this conversation after encountering this person this morning. I have reported them to SPI. Hope that was the right move. Robvanvee 06:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks unrelated to me. Your new guy is from Ireland, while the other dude is from Utah in the US. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Bizarre as my guy admitted on my talk page to being one of these. Anyway he got blocked for socking. Robvanvee 15:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Aha! I didn't go back far enough in your talk page history. I was looking at 89.127.59.173 but you were referring to TGoethals78. Totally the same person. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Asdisis situation

Hello Bink, I hope you are having a nice summer, you deserve it for being the responsable one and taking the role of sysop at that Tesla discussion. For me it has been very disapointing to see the indifference most others have been having, and, no doubts, it´s that lack of response and apparent tolerance that have been providing him motivation to continue like that. To me, this seems to be one real major problem, and I have been amaised to see that it has not been considered as such. A nationalistic POV-pusher in an extremelly sensitive area, the Balkans, where tolerance is already minimal, has been blocked and banned, however, he announced he has a program allowing him to alter his IP and subsequently evade blocks and bans, so he will be using it regardless of anything told and done. The ban was about 2 years ago and he has been editing activelly during the entire time. He recognises no authority, and is a vandal in its purest form, has no interest in improving Wikipedia, just introducing his POV. I tried to speak reasonably with him. He will not change and will also not give up. I was ignoring him for long, but that is not a solution, just as is not entering into edit-wars with him, and you saw by yourself how he restores his edits knowing its impossible to do him nothing. I honestly don´t know how to fill SPY reports, I refuse to loose time with that, that is not what Wikipedia should be about, and in that case I could learn to make SPY reports and would spend the entire day chasing him. Again, not a solution. I have been an editor for over a decade now and will probably edit for life, I love this project. I probably coudn´t, but anyway it was never my intention to be an admin, but I do feel very interested in the overall functioning of the project. In that sense, Asdisis case is by far the worst case of ban evasion I have ever seen, and one case which seems to have no solution. Is it possible? Can I help somehow? FkpCascais (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not an administrator but as an experienced editor I can recognize Asdisis when he jumps back into his Croatian Tesla nonsense. Perhaps it is time for us to make a page about Asdisis at WP:LTA, a page similar to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Techno genre warrior from Greece.

One thing you can do is stop answering his discussion points and instead remove them when you see them. If we remove his posts while leaving an edit comment linking to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Asdisis then we can keep removing his posts without violating the WP:3RR policy. It's a form of WP:EVADE where you can remove any edits from a ban evader. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I was so convinced you were an admin I didn´t even checked! Yes, you made great sugestions there. He clearly fits into that profile. He is a user with a point who takes it as a mission and wan´t give up. The thing is that his mission about Tesla is not so much of a nonsense. In Croatia there has been a wide belief Tesla was somehow "theirs" and Serbs "took him away", that ends up being important, as an encyclopedia, to keep his article free of bias. They seem to be planning to make Tesla their main theme at EXPO 2020. There would be nothing wrong there, unless their case wasn´t about somehow officializing his Croatization. I honestly don´t believe his account is a naive one, but I am still wanting to believe things have not gone that far and that he is somehow someone naive just wanting to push his beliefs into here. Whatever it is, it still makes same damage here. He has been editing a wide range of Croatian and regional articles, allways somehow fitting the idea Croatia existed and ruled Tesla places at that time. I will read all policies better and see if and how could we solve this and have it as model for solving this kind of problem. FkpCascais (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Warning response

Hi Binksternet, you left me a warning here accusing me of both vandalism and of using multiple IP addresses; as a regular Wikia contributor I of course respect the need for warnings, but this one was very premature. I only made one edit to the Bauhaus page last night, not to vandalise but to make note of the band coming back together in November. Another anonymous user may have may have made the same edit as me, but that was not me making the same edit with another IP address. -- 94.209.223.183 (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I had you confused with someone else. Binksternet (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It's no problem, if I were in your shoes I would have most probably assumed the same. -- 94.209.223.183 (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mr._Bungle#The_Death_Metal_Strikes_Back. Lynchenberg (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Richard Stallman

What is this? You're on my talk page threatening to block me and you've outright deleted a segment of the Stallman article that four different people spent the day going back and forth about. The article's got citations and all the other jazz everyone was griping it didn't have when I started; if you have a nitpick with it it's your job to make it better, not outright annihilate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.39.178 (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

There's no other elegant place to put this, but: The entire PDF dump of Stallman's emails is also hosted on a Vice News article, making them items that have been hosted and commented on by an external and reliable source. I originally cited Vice, but another user removed it as being not a good source. The state of the article as you then found it was based on my bringing it into compliance with previous complaints that it was too hostile to Stallman and the sources weren't good enough, so I duly included sources the other editors felt were 'good'.

I do think that under the hood of all the sourcing complaints I was getting (and am still getting) is a basic bias to be positive towards Stallman. I've said so. Repeatedly. I would be interested in any clarification on what exactly constitutes good sourcing, since I have plenty of secondary sources on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.39.178 (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has decided to hold a systemic "bias" against too much negativity on biographies of living persons; the stance is described at WP:BLP. A persistent group of Stallman fans on Wikipedia are in favor of the most positive spin possible about Stallman, and they hover 'round related articles to make sure. This is the stonewalling you see. For this group, no source will be sufficient if it says Stallman said A but Stallman self-published a denial at B. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your false accusation of 'harassment'

I'm not sure you how you convinced that semi-retired admin to leave the ominous and threatening "harassment" warning on my talk page, but you know full well that I've engaged in absolutely ZERO "purposeful and blatant" harassment of you. I only left you a boilerplate edit warring notice, as required. I'd suggest you review WP:AOHA, especially the part about false accusations. We're involved in a dispute, and apparently an edit war. Try to conduct yourself like an adult as we work through the dispute resolution process. Bullying me with false accusations of harassment isn't going to help your cause; shame on you for going there. Really disappointing. From now on, stay off my talk page and I'll stay off yours. Dharmabumstead (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I had no contact with FlightTime about you, so your assumption is wrong about me supposedly working against you in back channels. Unfortunately, your wrong assumption along with this belittling message demonstrates that you do not think I am editing in good faith. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

He just spontaneously decided to issue me a dire warning about 'blatantly' harassing you out of the blue, without any justification whatsoever? Interesting.

The way you've conducted yourself so far in the dispute over the SACD article along with the wildly incorrect assertions and belittling comments you made about me in your response to the dispute resolution discussion seems to demonstrate that you're not 'editing in good faith'. My sole interest in changing that page is to make it better; you're acting like an imperious bully who's taken umbrage that some upstart Wikipedia newb is daring to challenge you on something. Stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmabumstead (talk • contribs) 04:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

FlightTime's reason for warning you would best be explained by FlightTime. I have nothing to do with it.

Good faith editors can differ on how to "make it better", but removing a well-cited and prominent negative thing from the lead section is almost always a violation of WP:Neutral point of view. This is one of those cases. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Putting it in the lead is not only incredibly ugly and clunky from a writing perspective but violates WP:NPOV and seems completely unnecessary (see WP:UNDUE)...unless, perhaps, one has a personal bias that wants it to be one of the first things a reader sees when they go to that page. Our disagreement seems to boil down to the necessity and motivation of putting it there in the first place - no other wiki aricle on audio formats does that. Anyway, I've stated my reasons - and backed them up with secondary sources, per your request - in the talk section of the disputed article (as well as in the dispute resolution discussion). Let's discuss it there, and let's see what how the dispute resolution process works out. Dharmabumstead (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

One more thing: I have *zero* "professional associations" with "audiophiles". What makes you claim that I do? I'm a technical writer in an unrelated industry, and I've got no financial stake in the audio industry. I am a (skeptical, practical) audiophile, and own a fair number of SACDs (like any audio format, some are great, some are merely OK, and some are horrible). The only thing that made me go look at (and edit) the SACD page is that someone (who I do not know) on another site complained that the lead of article made it seem awfully biased. Dharmabumstead (talk) 05:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Bauhaus

Why are you reverting repeated edits listing Bauhaus as active in 2019, when in the very article it states the band is planning two shows in November? P.S. Those of us making these edits are not "deliberately introducing false information" or vandalizing, as you claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.66.65.29 (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the legacy of World War II

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) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

OneofJessieJheartbeat

If you want to report OneofJessieJheartbeat (talk · contribs) please file e new report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky. The report you added it to had already been acted on and closed. Cabayi (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

!Barnstar!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 14:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

!Gracias! Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yomil y el Dany

Hi, is inclusion in the 2017 billboard latin music awards finalists enough to claim notability? Yomil y el Dany is supported only by that. Hydromania (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

No. You can nominate the article for deletion.

If, as they claim, the artist was notable for pioneering a musical genre, they would be worthy of an article, but so far trapton is nothing big. Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

RE: ring modulation

Your idea of “gobbledygook” is what the thing actually does. It doesn’t “blend” anything, the LO port chops the RF to IF port path flipping the polarity whenever the LO goes through a zero crossing. The ring of diodes doesn’t have to be diodes, they can be FETs anything that switches on/off, and it’s not a bridge diode drawn funny. The diode ring doesn’t actually actually have to be a ring, the mixer designed for AWACS in the 70’s arranged the balun transformers differently so all 4 diodes go to ground. For maintainability, they had to be in little bullet shaped packages under screw covers on the sides so they could be swapped out if damaged by an Electro-Magnetic Pulse. It’s nice that people who don’t understand the details can seize on the name of a component like “ring diode” and attach meaning to it. It’s not a good idea to think that it’s a substitute for actual knowledge.

You’re an audio engineer, which means that, like everyone else who hasn’t worked as an RF or microwave engineer, what you know about double balanced mixers comes from a half-accurate junk articles and stuff written by ham radio enthusiasts who are long on enthusiasm and short on details. I’m a Ph.D. E.E who did RF new product development, including a lot of RF hybrid double balanced mixers, the expensive ones that the Mini-Circuits cheapies pictured on the article page were designed from, back when that was the state of the art.

If you feel something more approachable would have made the content accessible, I agree.

If you think Wikipedia should remain a collection of ignorant twaddle written to keep ignorant fools just as they are, you’re doing a great job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolychromePlatypus (talk • contribs)

Lovely to hear from you, too.

PolychromePlatypus, the first big problem I had with your change to the article was that you wrote opaque technical jargon into the first paragraph. The second big problem was that you expanded the lead section instead of expanding the article body. (The lead section is supposed to summarize the article body, not introduce new ideas.) The third problem is that you are taking personal knowledge and writing it into Wikipedia, which is against the hard policy of WP:No original research. What people should do is add text based on WP:Reliable sources published in books, magazines, technical papers and so on, citing those sources for WP:Verifiability. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Binksternet I can understand wanting material in an opening paragraph to be approachable, and while I suspect any summary of technical information will have some detail leak into the summary, your third point is way, way off. It’s not even slightly original, or even vaguely research. That was all settled wisdom by 1950. The real research was done by Marconi before WWI, many others, including Bell Labs and the WWII RadLab filled in all the details. There hasn’t been anything new to say about the theory underlying the double balanced mixer since then. The basic LO driven commuting analysis can be found anywhere from current Mini-Circuits app notes to 70 year old IRE articles (the IRE was a predecessor of the current IEEE). It seems to be eternally confusing for amateur radio enthusiasts and audio band people who always seem to have gotten a mashup of mis-applied related information - usually derived from a diode in a tuned circuit as a non-linear resistance to make an AM radio detector. A Wikipedia article passing along the same mashup condemns another generation to ignorance. Of course, this is also part of what contributes to a more satisfying salary scale for RF & microwave engineers but I never complain about that. PolychromePlatypus 16:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking again at the ring modulation article, it's apparent that it was written in fits and starts by multiple hands. A certain amount of redundancy is seen, with some very small sections needing to be folded into other sections. The easiest solution would be to use your expertise to tweak the wording of the article body. A more difficult solution would be to read and cite the field of literature on the subject, and to rework the whole article for flow and clarity. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

URL

Hey Bink. Could I ask you to check the source added here for me. It won't open on my PC but it could be my browser. FWIW, I'm pretty certain this is our old friend Gho$tkiller/Aerobicthyme/Methodmaster... Just waiting for them to drop their guard. Robvanvee 05:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The cited source does work on my computer and it supports every change that was made in the linked edit. I will help keep an eye on the situation. Binksternet (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Yeah, my spider senses were right about him previously and they are tingling again. Robvanvee 08:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's an interaction chart with the socks. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a pretty cool tool. So what does this mean? Are they possibly matches based on their mutual article edits? Robvanvee 14:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It takes a while to find similarities in style, but you can sift out stuff like the same date change in the same article. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Cool, I'll go over it when I've got some time. As always, much appreciate your help man. Robvanvee 19:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey Bink, do you think your edits as pointed out above (the same date change) as well as this same date change and also this same date change not to mention this same date change (there are more but I don't want to bore you) might be cause for concern and a case for SPI or should I keep digging? There is also this from the latest suspect (examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) vs previous guilty parties (examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Robvanvee 18:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey man, sorry to be a rash. Concerned you may have missed my query above. If not and you are just really busy, my apologies. Just always value your input! Robvanvee 06:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

My real life butted in and caused me to abandon a half-finished report to ANI on this exact matter. Let's see if I can recover the momentum now that I'm off work. Binksternet (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! Hate to be an irritation. I also thought that perhaps because many of their edits are good, you may have decided to leave them alone (is that ever an option for a block evader? I wouldn't have thought so?) Yeah also seen a few other questionable edits that have me wondering so let me know if you want me to do some more sifting. Robvanvee 07:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

There's always some tension between WP:BANREVERT and the interests of our readers. It's up to us to decide. Binksternet (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Lucifer Characters

Hi, I just saw you revert an edit that I took out earlier due to being unsourced and need some help. I was trying to fix the template but it either leaves a white space or the bar goes too far in that column. I don't know if it's a glitch or I'm just not doing something right. There is also something else in the template that is off. Please help! Thanks Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is going wrong with that template. I was only visiting the article because of the IP address Special:Contributions/2A02:8084:88BC:EE00:EDE2:10C3:F6C4:3498 which I thought was evading a block, but the person says I was mistaken. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. I undid this edit and it looks fine now. Thanks for the reply. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wacky Packages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drew Friedman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you can help with this but I'm going to ask anyway

I'm asking you because I know you're very dedicated to cleaning up articles and I don't know where else to go. I have reason to believe that I have come across somebody with several different IP accounts, one of which is blocked, and that they are the same person because their edits are very similar. Who do I go to with this? Rodericksilly (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I do a lot of investigation of such cases. You can describe the problem here, or just tell me a couple of the involved articles, or if you want to keep it 100% private, email me through the link "email this user". Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I think this user

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/146.90.125.113

and this user

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/146.90.125.0

could be this blocked user

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.208.236.216

as they keep making the same edit to the page Jon Pertwee when I have advised them to to take it to the Talk page to discuss.

Thanks.

Rodericksilly (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Real life calls; I'll look at this later. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm back. Rodericksilly, I looked at the situation and it's abundantly clear your Pertwee edit warrior is the same person acting through various IP addresses, all of which geolocate to the same city: Hemel Hempstead. I reverted a few of this person's edits, labeling them as "Block evasion by Special:Contributions/46.208.192.0/18", but I left a lot more of the copyediting work in place, as it is generally an improvement. Not always, but usually. If you see a problem edit from this person, you should feel free to revert according to WP:BANREVERT. If the problem persists, you can also report on the situation at WP:ANI to get more of the IP addresses blocked per WP:EVADE. But remember that the main goal is to serve the reader, and if this person is improving an article's readability then let it be. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

So this guy put up a huge fight and got blocked. The block notification refers to a persistent vandal case which you can read at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. So your new friend was a long-term vandal evading his block. Binksternet (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Point of order (and I apologise for sounding like a broken record), the "Best known for IP" has been sanctioned for block evasion, edit warring and incivility, but never for vandalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I placed Template:Uw-multipleIPs on the guy's talk page because he was using multiple IPs to evade a block (in this case effectively a site ban because of so many socks and incorrible behavior.) The template boilerplate calls such a person a vandal, even though individual edits from him are not vandalism. But what do you call someone who breaks Wikipedia's blocking policy every time they edit? Just by showing up they are violating our rules. So the difference between a long-term abuse case and a vandal is splitting hairs – a distinction without a difference. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem, and the reason we are where we are now, is that this guy got accused of vandalism once too often and caused him to go off the rails. Somebody making good faith edits, even if they're being disruptive about it, will just get brassed off if you say they're vandalism and react accordingly. So there is quite a big difference. We should be more diplomatic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

He's lucky to have you as an advocate, though your quest is quixotic. If you're serious about change you might want to look at the boilerplate of our various Twinkle and rollback warnings to determine whether we should remove the word "vandal".

As far as I'm concerned, this guy is a malefactor because of his habit of repeated incorrigible trespassing. It doesn't make any difference to me that he doesn't spray graffiti after he breaks in, he's still breaking in. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hah! I'm not an advocate (he just calls me names, the only editors he's reasonable to are Yngvadottir and Drmies) - it's just that policy says "avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia; this is even true when warning a user with a standard warning template". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I was serious when I suggested you might want to go around and remove the word vandal from various rollback templates such as Template:Uw-multipleIPs. There a lot of places in Wikipedia where we lump the trespassers in with the vandals, and you are in a position to fix it. Binksternet (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about "breaking in". If that's another word for "block evasion", sure. But his edits are not vandalism, and if I run into them I treat them on a case-by-case basis. Thank you Ritchie333--you have not deserved the IP's unkindness. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Binksternet, I just don't see the need for this. It's a valid comment, and the IP is not dumb, nor is the comment itself inappropriate. You're not coddling anyone if you leave it or act on it--you're improving an article. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The community has decided that this person is not welcome to contribute. I think I'm being nice enough to him when I leave his copyediting work in place, in consideration of our readers. But allowing him to converse with other editors is too much. He should go through proper channels and get unblocked, at which time he will be able to interact with the community. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

What was this edit (reverted by Binksternet) if not vandalism? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park)&diff=918771678&oldid=918771539. Rodericksilly (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It was an attempt to get the article fixed by proxy by tagging it (not the best way of doing things, but still in good faith), and a copyedit of some prose. It doesn't matter if it was sub-optimal by not leaving an edit summary and tagging for issues instead of fixing them directly; absolutely nothing there suggests an attempt to purposefully make Wikipedia worse. See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to his repeated removal of the gallery.Rodericksilly (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I've removed galleries when improving an article to GA status, so that can definitely be done in good faith. Repeatedly removing it is blockable depending on how rapidly it gets removed (but blockable because of edit warring, not vandalism), but if the same person is repeatedly restoring it, they can also get blocked. To give you an analogy, consider Frank Spencer; nobody would ever consider him to be a thug, a bully or a criminal, even though he causes identical problems to those three groups. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

My issue with this user is that they have certainly been guilty of edit-warring and a resistance to engage in discussion - until Binksternet eventually got involved today and the user finally posted on a Talk page. edit: I'd add that Bink as an American might not "get" the Frank Spencer reference - that's a very British cultural icon and I'm not sure it travelled! Rodericksilly (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: Editing made on articles Elmer Valentine, Eddie Rubin, and others.

Hello Binksternet. I received and read your messages regarding edits made to the articles titled "Elmer Valentine," "Eddie Rubin," and the other related articles. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think perhaps my mistake was not including detailed citations/references for the edits and contents I added to the aforementioned articles. I did not intend to promote or advertise anyone or anything, but rather to correct and add missing information to these articles. I am not related to any of these individuals and don't have any connections to them. I'm simply a music history major that enjoys contributing knowledge and facts to music related-articles. The following are replies to your messages:

Regrading the "Elmer Valentine" article, I don't understand why adding a band who performed at his nightclub is considered promotional and advertising material. I noticed there were famous bands already listed in the article that performed at the Whisky a Go Go, so why not add the band (Eddie Rubin & Johnny Rivers) that was the very first band to open the Whisky and start it's popularity? It is a well known fact, so I was just trying to enhance and improve the article. Why wouldn't the other bands listed in the article be considered promotional and advertising material? The point of Wikipedia is to collaborate and help to improve/add to articles with accurate and important information.

I noticed that Eddie Rubin was removed from the articles "Jazz drummers," "Venice High School," and that Johnny Rivers was removed from a few, but I can't understand why. There are plenty of other musicians listed in these articles, so how is it disruptive to add more?

Please let me know what I did wrong so that I don't make the same mistake in the future, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.123.228 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The first thing is that Johnny Rivers was always considered a solo act, even when he was backed by Rubin, and later Rubin plus others. So Rubin isn't famous. Rivers can be listed as a famous artist who played the Whisky.

If you work from the idea that Rubin isn't famous, then there are guidelines such as WP:LISTPEOPLE that instruct you to avoid listing him as a notable alumni of a school, or as a notable jazz drummer. Binksternet (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Rubin is famous and well-known in musician circles. However, I read the guidelines and being famous isn't necessarily a requirement for a person to be mentioned in articles. There are a multitude of musicians written about on Wikipedia that are not household names. For example there is an article on a drummer named Mickey Jones, who was hired by Johnny Rivers to replace Eddie Rubin when Eddie went on to record with Neil Diamond and Ornette Coleman, but Mickey is not a famous and well-known musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.123.228 (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's requirements for notability may be seen at WP:MUSICBIO. Basically, the musician needs to have a chart hit, or have won a major award, or have some in-depth coverage about him in the media. I looked pretty thoroughly for in-depth coverage of Rubin and I saw nothing. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

(Removing section per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Lists)

I don't think you should be removing content like that. Why not split into separate lists, as the MoS suggests? Unless of course the list is too short to deserve an article.--Bageense^(disc.) 19:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I had translated from German Wikipedia the Neue Deutsche Härte list. I'm going make it a self-standing list then. Just like in the German Wikipedia actually. But I think the same should be done for others. Cheers. --Bageense^(disc.) 19:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

So tomorrow I'll create other articles to save the content. (When possible and reasonable of course. If there are references and enough content.) --Bageense^(disc.) 00:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Latin Trap - do you think maybe the article should be protected?

There seems to be a lot of back and forth going on with the Latin trap article. I think maybe the article should be protected from edits by non-registered users. What do you think?--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

6Years strike out

Binksternet, I'm not sure why you are removing the 6Years sock strike outs. The confirmed IP was already blocked as of August. So the entire time 6Years was editing was a block evasion. I do get that Dumuzid wasn't a sock. That was a mistaken strike. From the SPI admin comments, In my opinion, 6YearsTillRetirement is clearly the account created by the IP editor 73.76.220.8 after being advised to do so by GoodDay, and based on the long history of obsessions with sockpuppets on Facebook and of a conspiracy of administrators catering to white supremacists, as well as personal attacks in general, I believe this is the same editor I blocked way back in March (for personal attacks and block evasion) and was blocked again in July (for personal attacks), and is currently blocked by a checkuser, a block which 6YearsTillRetirement is evading. Basically since 6Years is 73.76.220.8 their whole edit history is an evasion. Springee (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I was working with the fact that 6Years was unblocked here, prior to his engagement at Talk:Andy Ngo. Yes, I saw your evidence that seems to connect 6Years with the IP 73.76.220.8, but Bbb23 (a checkuser) corrected the SPI clerk (Ivanvector) comments by saying "FYI: you have no notes on cuwiki regarding the IP or the master. Also, you have never checked the IP or the master," which greatly reduces the certainty of the clerk's observations. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Since we know 6Years was sock editing and we know their IP account was blocked right at the end of their editing I think we can conclude they were evading the whole time. This was a concern raised by their first edit (initiating an AfD). I don't see an issue with striking their comments as sock the whole time. Springee (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Iron Maiden Somewhere in Time - Texas Records and Tapes reference

How is the reference I provided not enough proof? It shows the part of the album cover, and the shirt of the actual event which happened at the store and even shows one of the band members wearing that shirt from the event. The photographic proof alone should warrant it being a credible source that it is a reference to that establishment. It is not a typical source such as a news article, but the photographic evidence alone is strong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.242.206 (talk • contribs)

You linked to a t-shirt sales page. Not a reliable source for the connection you are trying to make. If a newspaper reporter or book author was making the connection then you would be warranted in adding it. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. Pudeo (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Really? I said an editor was a member of some groups, and an activist. I didn't give out personal information. Lots of people are activists, and lots of people are members of those groups. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Were those memberships disclosed by him in Wikipedia? --Pudeo (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

He said his alma mater was Catholic University of America (CUA), a statement which is reinforced by his first user name, Briancua. He uploaded a handful of images as a representative of CUA.[1][2] <redacted> and every one of his abortion-related edits on Wikipedia puts forward a pro-life viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of the Enforcements page I can see that Sandstein and MastCell made comments that were struck by Beeblebrox. If either of you were aiming a remark at me you can deliver it here. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

A name change stays in WP logs so that's fair enough, though if a name change was done for privacy reasons, it would be courteous to not mention it unless necessary. You coupled the former name with these memberships, making doxxing easy. He writes autobiographically – this is not true, writing some unsourced information about an organization does not mean it's written autobiographically. Photos showed him involved in anti-abortion activism – incorrect, photographing a protest would not necessarily mean this. The AE report is heading for a boomerang based on-wiki stuff. Real life does not matter and using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem is considered a personal attack. --Pudeo (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, let me clear this up real quick: The CUA connection is publicly declared on-wiki, so that's fine. The rest of what you are saying is original research by you based on speculation from their contribution history. You can draw your own conclusions in your mind but you can't state them as facts on-wiki. So please, don't do that again. I did not strike any part of anyone's comments except yours, but all intervening revisions had to be suppressed to remove your speculation. And I've had to do so again here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Update

After follow-up discussion with members of the oversight team, I have restored the redacted portion of your remarks. Suppression is considered a "tool of first resort" to be used to protect users, since we are easily able to reverse the process. It turns out there was an on-wiki declaration that supported your removed claims. However, I should note that what we found was not what you were citing as evidence, and that were that the only evidence to be found this would still be suppressible outing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the update and the policy advice. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible return of block evader

Hi Bink

Could you check whether 82.13.100.94, who edited the Jon Pertwee page today, is 146.90.125.0? Because the latter has a block extending to 30 March 2020.

Thanks.

Rodericksilly (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Also editing as 82.13.100.44 and 82.13.100.163. Rodericksilly (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I tagged those IPs as block evasion by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP, and I asked for indefinite page protection. Let's see what happens there. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Beatles

Ha! Seems we were doing the same thing. I'll leave you to it. Robvanvee 16:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ha! No, I'm done reverting that one guy's string of Yellow Matter Custard covers. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

...Except that he's still on a roll. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Put a stop to that shit! :) BTW, about our previous discussion above (I don't like leaving loose ends), I'm actually not so sure anymore as I've seen them reverting edits left by the previous socks, unless of course, that is all part of their strategy... Cheers. Robvanvee 16:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Your report at WP:AIV

• 86.160.157.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Regarding this filing. What is the giveaway that 86.160.157.43 (talk · contribs) is User:HarveyCarter? Something about 'erroneously'? If the HarveyCarter connection is not certain, there might still be a case for semiprotecting the Muammar Gaddafi article. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Ed, the first thing is the Bury St Edmonds geolocation of IP, which is found on a great many HarveyCarter block evasions. The second thing is the nature of the edits, changing of date or fact or tone to match this one guy's personal bent which is basically one of shit-stirrer. The third thing is that this guy likes to hit political pages, especially politicians, to try and rewrite history. The fourth thing is my spidey sense... an unquantifiable metric. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

You convinced me. But User:Darkwind already gave a shorter block. If he sees this ping perhaps he will come here and give his opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston and Binksternet: It was the geolocation and the specific pro-dictator/axis/"bad guy" nature of the edits that convinced me. Feel free to extend the block. –Darkwind (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Block extended to one month. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Underworld Unleashed

I've just restored the Underworld Unleashed article to what it was before this got started, and even removed two things in it just now and restored another one a while back (thanks for your help with the last one and please know - I mean it).

Is there a reason why you've altered it (and continue to do so)? If you'll look at the View history section, I've explained where I got my information for my contributions to this article. No one has even complained about it...until now. Please explain, as I'm very confused here. Thank you.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, Malcolm, here's my reasoning. At the article there are far too many violations of WP:No original research, where you and other editors have been taking the stories and analyzing them for the Wikipedia reader, using nothing but the stories themselves as references. You guys are acting like you are writing a magazine article about the topic, but this is an encyclopedia which is supposed to be a summary of already-published works. To establish rock-solid importance to the topic, a reliably published third-party source should be cited making the analysis, which means you need WP:SECONDARY sources as the main basis for the article. The problem with all of your expansion work is that you have cited no third party sources. Also, there are excessive lists embedded in the article, for instance the section header "List of Underworld Unleashed titles" which is not anchored by any third party source at all, rendering it totally unimportant to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, I think, but could you allow one concession and put back the missing supervillains that I put into the section Villains who rejected Neron's offer?

That's what got me started on my contributions in the first place, because I figured that they were part of the story (albeit a brief one) and, as a result, shouldn't be ignored. I used three major DC websites to get this information:

• The Unofficial Guide to the DC Universe (entry on Underworld Unleashed #1)
• Crisis on Earth-Prime (Underworld Unleashed #1 section)
• The Comic Book Database (entry on Underworld Unleashed #1).

What I did the ones that were not known to have refused is mark them with an asterisk. Hope that helps.

Also, if you look on the Talk page of the article, there are two supervillains whose names are unknown to me (and one of them was shown rejecting the offer). If you could please help me out on this, that would be great! Thank you.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: Never mind, I see that all of the lists have all been removed. Thanks anyway, though.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Your listed sources are not considered reliable sources because they allow users to change the information. Read the guideline at WP:USERGENERATED which says all wikis (even Wikipedia) are not considered reliable. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me; I didn't know that.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hollywood's Bleeding

There has been a debate about the genres in the article [3] [4] do to this source [5], these genres were added before more reviews of this album came out. I just wondering should we remove the source and replace it with a source explain the genres better? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. That source calls it a "synth-pop-rock’n’roll-bedroom-indie-trap-hip-hop-break-up album." Rock'n'roll is old fashioned but Post Malone doesn't do that kind of music. What the hell does "bedroom" mean? Post Malone isn't indie if he released the album on a big label, which he did. Nobody else thinks the album is trap, despite having some trap elements. And "break-up" isn't a genre. So the most I could pull from that description is synth-pop, rock, hip-hop. Further along in the review, the reviewer lists the album's song genres, which include "heavy rock", "indie rock", "bedroom indie" and "synth-pop", but these are song genres – they don't describe the overall album genre.

What is needed here is a larger view of the literature. Pitchfork describes the album in pop terms]. Consequence of Sound describes the album in pop terms. Variety calls it trap-pop. Billboard describes the album in pop terms. Vulture says the album "rearranges shards of rap, rock, punk, and dance music", which I take as describing elements of genre, not the final overall genre. The Atlantic has trouble nailing down an overall genre. The Fader describes the album in pop terms. GQ describes the album in terms of pop. So let's start a discussion about genre on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, let's start a discussion on the article's talk page. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: Jayo Felony Birthdate

I dont know anything about talk pages so I hope I'm doing this correctly and you get the msg...

The Youtube song (Call me by my Government) from Jayo Felony's latest album "James Savage" reveals his actual birthdate when his mother speaks on the song at 8 seconds. (Not to mention I know him personally)

I tried to post a link to the song but Wikipedia says the link is on a blacklist...

Vmf863 (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC) Steve Vmf863

My advice is to contact AllMusic and get them to change their online biography of Jayo Felony. Wikipedia has a hard policy of WP:Verifiability, which means a fact should be verifiable by looking at a respected published source. Song lyrics don't count. Another tactic is to get a professional journalist to write a feature talking about the early life including birth date. Binksternet (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

About you/registering

I enjoyed reading your autobiographical comments. Usually I don't enjoy such comments on User Pages. I agree with your idea, presumably expressed long ago, that everyone who wants to contribute to Wikipedia ought to register and create an account. This would nearly eliminate vandalism and solve a lot of problems. Why do you think this idea has never been tried? I've been thinking about it. Legal reasons? That's always a good default answer. That, and "money". Or is it promotional, i.e. "Anyone can edit Wikipedia... anyone at all ...woo hoo!" Of course, why should anyone be a writer and editor? People are different. Why we do insist in assuming they can be dentical? Not everyone was meant to be a doctor or computer programmer or solider. Why we do assume that anyone can? Not everyone can be an editor or writer. Such a claim misses what those people actually do and what their qualifications are.
–Vmavanti (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the most important reason for the continued allowance of IP editors is the legacy of "anyone can edit" which was important to the fast expansion and dominance of early Wikipedia. I feel that today's Wikipedia does not need "anyone" to edit. It's more mature now, and should be written only by relatively skilled people.

It's true that registered user names have been misused in WP:MULTIPLEs by people who are frustrated with their inability to sway a decision with just one voice. So whatever solution is implemented, it should be based on a real person having only one login. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hearst Castle

Dear Binksternet, hope you are keeping well and that work is not too demanding. Off to southern Spain tomorrow for a couple of weeks, including a brief stay in Ronda where I shall search out the Great Accumulator’s main inspiration. I’d like to push the castle towards FA when I get back. If a collaboration still works for you, would November/December be a suitable time to complete the History? If it doesn’t, I absolutely understand - times change. Just let me know. KJP1 (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Bon voyage! Yes, let's collaborate on the FA. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

My Reversions

Hello.

I replied to your message on my talk page, but then it occurred to me that you might not see what I said, so I decided to come to yours.

I had actually already reached out to the editor that deleted my edits prior to restoring them. The only reason for my having restored them in the end is that I spoke to him about the matter on his talk page and we came to an agreement which stated that my original edits had been - on the whole - correct. I now see that you have reverted them all over again.

Thank you for warning me about the three strikes rule. I was unaware of it. I shall therefore wait for the mandatory twenty-four hours, then - if you have no further objections - restore the edits that I made.

Yours sincerely,

O.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)O.ominirabluejack

Yes, I see your argument is that Europeans such as Sir Paul McCartney can have a title in front of their name, so I guess I will concede. Binksternet (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Boswell

Heya, did you see my followup on the Catholicism and homosexuality talk page? I was curious about what you're reading as firm condemnation, since I very much don't see it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look later today when I can catch up. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Confusion

Hi, Binksternet. I would just like to tell you something. I'm a huge Chuck Jones fan, and all I was trying to do was put and retain good faith edits to the fellow fans who love his work. I'm not Mr Jack Marley from Maryland as you may have mistaken me for. Yes, I did do music edits too, but like I said, I do it for good faith. I apologize for the inconvenience, and I hope we can put this behind us. If you would like me to help you look for this user, I would be glad to help. Just make sure to keep my edits on who directed and wrote Adventures of the Road Runner on the Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner page, since Maurice Noble and Tom Ray were co-directors, and Chuck Jones wrote part of the movie (it even says it at the beginning of the film). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:4001:1AA0:6453:667B:8440:4897 (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let's run with the idea that you are not some blocked user. In general, you need to start citing sources for each of your changes to articles. Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published works, not observations from fans of Chuck Jones. So tell the reader what published source you are summarizing. All of your changes must be verifiable. You should not be violating the policy of WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

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) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Someone messed up everything on purpose for poor Tom & Jerry

I was on Wikipedia and had to fix every error made in the Chuck Jones section of the Tom and Jerry filmography. Some idiot went and put random directors credits for the wrong cartoons and completely removed The Mouse from H.U.N.G.E.R. with this fake cartoon called extinct puss. I fixed it now, but if anyone messes with that sort of section again, I'll let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.135.4.140 (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Care to weigh in?

Hey would you be able to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LIM (rapper)? The article I nominated was a vandalized version, the original might pass WP:SINGER #2. I have no idea how to read a French music chart listing. Thanks, Hydromania (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Testament (band)

I didn't edit that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.38.145.209 (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Young Thug

Hello, I'm Strateguy. I am quite new to this editing thing, but as far as I know, associated acts include those that have collaborated with the artist multiple times (which Young Thug and Lil Baby have) and they are also friends, aren't they? Strateguy (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The associated acts part of the infobox is for artists that are very closely interconnected professionally, with multiple collaborations. I removed some of your contributions because they were not that much "associated." See Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts for more information. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

An inspiring spire!

Enjoy your travels! Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please don't accuse others...

of the same behaviors you are engaged in. You can see the material you added has been disputed by others yet you restored it. Going to the talk page is good but not too cast aspersions. Springee (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm calling it as I see it. The mirror is a useful tool. Both terms have the same level of support on the talk page but you ignore one in favor of the other. Ask the mirror why that might be the case. Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

You are correct, we don't have consensus for "right wing". Wp:NOCON is the policy we follow on that case. Springee (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense, don't put words in my mouth. I am saying that consensus exists for both "conservative" and "right-wing", but you are ignoring one in favor of the other. You behavior at the article has become a problem. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't try to reinsert material that others (not just me) have repeatedly objective to. Did anything change between there last removal and now? If you were concerned about how others would react why not propose the change then see if a new consensus had formed. Again your own behavior was less than ideal. Springee (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Someone likes messing with Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner!

Someone just completely removed at least 6000 words of information in the Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner page, and replaced it with already mentioned and fake articles. This user already had the only warning that Wikipedia was giving him, which means needs to be blocked for the sake of humanity. -NTS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:4001:1AA0:58E1:D7CF:7958:E50D (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

You must be talking about this change, made by someone way up in the Italian Alps using the IP6 range Special:Contributions/2001:B07:A9A:5B1D:0:0:0:0/64. Much of what this person removes is unreferenced, but, yes, a very few referenced points are also removed. And your complaint is that false information is substituted.

I wouldn't have any idea whether this stuff is correct or not. All of it needs references, not just a sentence here or there. I think most of that stuff should be removed completely. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad this is being taken care of. I agree. Duck Soup doesn't exist, and he replaced the descriptions of Wile E. Coyote's encounters with Bugs Bunny with words that reference the titles of their cartoons and nothing more. They aren't even links in an organized order. The only short Wile E. appeared in with Daffy Duck was Superior Duck, and it was only a cameo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.135.4.140 (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Nothing's Gonna Change My Love For You + Red Red Wine Sources, which one would be acceptable?

Hi Bink

I have multiple sources but my question is do you want ALL of the sources or ONLY the best for each???

1. UB40 Red Red Wine. Here are a bunch of sources for this The Slate and Twitter are both podcasts Its listed in Fred Bronson's The Billboard Book of Number 1 Hits http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/culturegabfest/2017/04/how_red_red_wine_by_ub40_became_an_unlikely_hit.html https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/8472113/ub40-red-red-wine-labour-of-love https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/music/red-red-wine-revisited-the-ub40-phoenix-connection-6615296 https://counteract.co/features/beginners-guide-to-ub40/ https://www.songfacts.com/facts/ub40/red-red-wine https://nj1015.com/dons-top-10-from-september-13-1988/ https://twitter.com/javajoel?lang=en

2.Glenn Medeiros "Nothing's Gonna Change My Love for You": There are a few sources for my information some of this information is on other sources. Jay Stone was the producer(and program director of the radio talent contest) and I was the radio executive listed in the article. The last link below is where Jay Stone quits his job at KIKI to produce Glenn

https://www.revolvy.com/page/Glenn-Medeiros http://popcultureaddictlifeguide.blogspot.com/2015/10/artist-spotlight-glenn-medeiros.html https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Glenn_Medeiros https://americanradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Business/Music/Archive-RandR-IDX/IDX/80s/87/RR-1987-04-03-OCR-Page-0026.pdf#search=%22glenn medeiros story%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Zapoleon (talk • contribs) 12:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The first few sources for "Red, Red Wine" are the most convincing. Unlike in your version they don't mention the conservative nature of the US radio industry leading to the removal of Astro's rap, your colleagues Gene Baxter and Todd Fisher encouraging you to play the whole song including the rap, or anything about Charlie Fisher at Virgin. That portion is too much a violation of Wikipedia's hard policy of WP:No original research. And your version doesn't mention the June 1988 Free Nelson Mandela Concert at Wembley Stadium, or the dance-club remix by DJ Bobby Stark in Atlanta, both of which have been said to have had an influence on the song. Your version puts all the credit on you, making it too promotional. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

HarveyCarter

I suspect that a HarveyCarter sockpuppet is screwing with Spain during World War II, very similar style of writing and arguments.... --Havsjö (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I share the suspicion and have blocked the account indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I, too, agree. Binksternet (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Back from Ronda

And what a beautiful place it is. The Puente Nuevo really is something special. In a very odd twist, I learnt that Orson Welles' ashes are interred on an estate just outside, that used to belong to a matador friend of his. An inspiration to both Hearst and his nemesis! So, to the castle. How do you want to approach it? I think the art/architecture is pretty much covered, although it will benefit greatly from the peer review. Thus, as we discussed previously, we need an expanded History section. I don't think it needs to be too long, as the article's about the estate, not Hearst. I think we'd need to cover something like:

• The camping years - George Hearst's purchase of the estate and WRH's childhood;
• The partnership - Hearst and Morgan;
• The glory years - glittering guests etc. etc.,
• Xanadu - Hearst, Welles and the castle;
• Death and after - Hearst's last farewell, the transfer to the State of California, up to the present, visitor numbers etc..

How does that sound? I've no idea of your on/off Wiki commitments at present. If it would help, I could sketch out something on these lines, drop it in and you could rework? Or you may have done it already? Just let me know. I think if we could push it to PR sometime in November, we've have a good chance of getting to FAC pre-Christmas. I note, as an aside, that Julia M's birthday was 20 January, and the day of her death, 2 February. Assuming all goes well, a TFA appearance on either of those dates would be quite a nice tribute. Let me know how you want to play it. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I will have a lot of real life interruptions but I would like to help with the whole process of organization, PR and FAC. Your suggested layout is good. Getting it done by the end of the year is a great idea, in time for Morgan's birthday. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

P-38

Please, put do noy delete again my conributes, you can't accuse me of choosing only the negative aspects of their losses against German fighters. If you knew the book you would see that I reported only what is written (and not everything) about the first clashes in Tunisia. There was nothing written about being engaged in ground attack missions. If you know it you can add this data and not delete mine. Otherwise, your intervention may take the form of vandalism. Thanks. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I can, and I did accuse you of choosing only the negative aspects. My stance is that your contribution is a violation of WP:Neutral point of view. You were not concerned with giving the reader a balanced picture, instead you chose to show only the worst cases. What is needed at that article is a higher viewpoint than the listing of individual dates and sorties – a general's view of total wins and losses. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yours is bad behavior and in bad faith. I will not allow you to move these accusations without having the proof. How can you say that I have chosen only the worst cases if you do not know, as is evident from your words, the book from which I took that information? The author from whom I obtained that information is probably the greatest Luftwaffe expert today. The article was unbalanced before, as it reported that the P-38s had established an air superiority when instead they had suffered very heavy losses between the end of 1942 and the beginning of 1943. But I didn't want to argue with a person in bad faith as you. So I ask the intervention of an administrator who judges the matter, in the meantime I ask you to cancel the serious accusations that you wrote about the revision history that are detrimental to my professionalism as author of books on aviation history.--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hearst Castle

Hola Binksternet! I hope you are keeping well. So, I think I'm done on the Enchanted Hill for now. If you have time, I'd really appreciate you taking a look. I'm (rarely!) precious with collaborations, so feel free to change things you think need changing without referencing back. Specifics I'd really appreciate input on include:

• The spectre at the feast - I anticipate some challenge here, on the lines of "Kane's a composite, not Hearst". Is it strong enough?
• Having a ball - is this a bit light? There are plenty more celebrity guests I could list, but they all say broadly the same things: spectacular if a bit kitsch / limited drink / ketchup on the table / Marion drank / Hearst wasn't actually very sociable. Do you think it needs more? What about Patricia Lake's wedding? As Hearst/Davies' child (I think this is generally accepted?), this is probably worth mentioning?
• Death and after - the coverage of the post-Hearst period also seems a bit light. Is there more to say?
• Morgan - does it sufficiently acknowledge her contribution?
• Casa Grande - one could go on about more of the many rooms, but it might become repetitive. Have I missed anything key?
• Footnotes - too many? I rather like all of them, and Tryptofish and I got away with more at Sissinghurst Castle Garden, but there was a bit of comment.
• References - do they look alright?
• Further reading - anything really useful in here? There are no Google snippets. I'm very unsure Castle Fare and Castle Chronicles are worth keeping.
• Prose generally - does it read ok? Do I repeat myself - always a danger when one gets too close to it. And of course, any BR spellings that have got through. I've just picked up "theatre/theater"!

Give me a shout if you want to discuss. If we can look to push it to PR in mid-Nov., I think 20 January might be achievable, if a little tight. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Morning Binksternet - ok, I think it's ready to push to PR. It will be interesting to see what interest it may generate. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let's see what PR brings. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Record producer mix up

Pages: Mike Stone (record producer), Mike D. Stone, Clay Records, Clay Records discography, Mike "Clay" Stone

I would bring this to WikiProject:Record Labels but it doesn't seem very active, so hoping you can do something with this. Seems there were three Mike Stones who worked in record producing. One of them worked at Clay Records. Clay records has two unsourced articles which should probably be merged (someone tagged them with improperly formatted merge proposal templates) and then either sourced or AfD'd. In theory any mention of Mike Stone of clay records can just redirect to Clay records. Problem is, Mike "Clay" Stone was deleted as an implausible redirect to Mike Stone (record producer) (which doesn't seem correct). The delete means there are ~50 redlinks to Mike of clay which should really point to one of three pages, and I'm not sure the various editor(s) who originally linked them were linking the correct mike. Care to try to unravel it all? Hydromania (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Mistake & Apology

Hello, I noticed you erased some information about the crew that worked on cartoon shorts a few hours ago. I will admit, I am sorry for not using any resources for the credits. The thing I'm ticked off about is that you claim I'm Mr.JackMarley, when I in fact am not. You might remember me as the person who worked on the music articles as well, when you claim I was that user & I got blocked from editing Wikipedia for 3 months. Please note: I meant no harm, I apologize for no original research, & I hoped that cleared up about who I am. -NTS, Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:4001:1AA0:6037:8E8D:859A:64A5 (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You still have the problem of adding stuff without any references. What do you propose to do about that problem? Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I have started to add resources. I do truly apologize for this. I just get excited about information and put it down without second thought. I'm a huge Ben Washam and Chuck Jones freak, too. I'm also interested in music. The point is, there's a lot of stuff I have to do and I don't realize that I'm messing up until it's all deleted. You may note on 3 cartoons I added a resource for each on the state of proof. I will start citing from now on. Once again, for the 4,000th time, I'm truly sorry if I messed with your day. Enjoy the evening! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:4001:1AA0:7C61:CEF6:798F:F9D9 (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Duel Personality

Hello. You had deleted research & proof that Chuck Jones was a writer of Duel Personality. Michael Maltese didn't write it by himself, & I can prove it. Meet me at the page in 10 minutes, then tell what you think afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:4001:1AA0:80CF:6BC0:A250:5F9 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you seriously delete Chuck Jones' credit for writing Duel Personality?

Hello, you once again deleted important proof that Chuck Jones was a co-writer for Duel Personality. In fact, his name was credited before Michael Maltese. I even put a reference link. Also, there's an article on Don Towsley the animator. The link that people click is that of a technician or something. I'm fixing those links to verify it. Please don't interfere on a situation like that! You're messing up good things that help people, & when there's clearly evidence at the table! -NTS, Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.135.4.140 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is the wonderful & helpful link unreference for you to see for yourself! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-qz8ifq3l1o -NTS, Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.135.4.140 (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019

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: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

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) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I need help with images

I can't make a jpeg image correctly. Could you delete the one for Jerry Jerry Quite Contrary and show me how? -NTS, Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:4001:1AA0:EC15:DBF0:D987:1338 (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the image, so I can't nominate it for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I had already deleted before I went to bed and you went to check it. Is there still a way you could tell me what to do? It's the title card, and it actually looks great for the next decade. Let me send a link. https://tomandjerry.fandom.com/wiki/Jerry,_Jerry,_Quite_Contrary?file=Jerry%2C_Jerry%2C_Quite_Contrary_Title_Card.jpg -NTS, Anonymous

Regarding my edits to Rin Tin Tin

I'm afraid you misunderstood my intent! My placing the uncited section template at the start of the lead section was meant to convey that the lead section was (and still is!) entirely bereft of citations. I didn't mean to imply that the article lacked citations, but I can see how it might have been interpreted that way. Is there a better way to mark a lead section as lacking citations? If so, I apologize – I was unaware. I do, however, take umbrage at your characterization of my edit as "nonsense". Aren't we supposed to assume good faith? I feel that even a cursory glance at my contribution history would demonstrate that I am not, in fact, a vandal. Perhaps the fault is mine for making my intention unclear, but I feel that "nonsense" is a little uncalled for! Paulo_diCapistrano 07:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

If you are challenging a particular fact in the lead section, you should zero in on that one fact and challenge it directly. Per WP:CITELEAD, the lead section is supposed to be a general summary of the article, and should not require citations for facts cited in the article body, unless there are controversial claims about a living person.

You visited the article only once, making three edits in a row to yield this change. You did not start a discussion on the talk page about your concerns, and you did not identify your concerns in an edit summary or a hidden note. This behavior is called "drive-by tagging" and is considered disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson#RfC on self-sourcing

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson#RfC on self-sourcing. Inviting you as a previous RfC discussion participant at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson and/or contributing editor of Sharyl Attkisson. Doug Mehus T·C 14:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

First off, I used this month-off to confirm the Banana Splits suit actors by watching the credits a few times as credits are an absolute truth. Secondly, you made the grievous error of assuming me to be the culprit of the voice actor hoax. I know that sources are to respected, adding some myself in some cases and know my voice actors enough to recognize them. Also, you should have noticed that my post was intended as "Terry Sauls. Buntu Plam, Kori Clarke, and Brandon Vraagom as Fleegle, Bingo, Drooper and Snorky, the main animatronic protagonists of The Banana Splits television series, who go on a murderous rampage after learning of their show's cancellation. Fleegle, Bingo, and Drooper are voiced by Eric Bauza, who also voices the series announcer of The Banana Splits television series," while Snorky vocalizes in honking sound effects."

The fact you considered me a vandal to revert some articles that I was trying to update with result information, including a manga series that has not been properly updated for half a year and seems to be at its final arcs, only worsen this.173.170.37.203 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)