User talk:Binksternet/Archive53

Help!

Remember me? NTS, Anonymous? This dude named Wasell is messing with all my edits, and I'm using a phone for now until the block by MaterialScientist goes off my iPad. I never did vandalism or disruptive editing or whatever they are claiming. I have references and I'm saving space, but they revert it all back. The critics were right. This sucks! I have no rights! Please help make them stop! -NTS, Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:4001:1AA0:850B:297:5926:7550 (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

IP user on Terry Christian page

Hello. As you've done previous investigations into multiple IPs, there is somebody appearing to use multiple IP accounts to constantly disrupt this page despite my (and others') repeated reversions. They are using:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:31CC:1300:C10C:7234:6E17:2195 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:2BAE:8100:E13D:800E:C381:81D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EmmaLace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:31CC:1300:89C1:4AEA:4A14:B1CD

Thanks. Rodericksilly (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I poked around and greatly pruned some of the pages involved. I tagged the registered account with a conflict-of-interest notice. I will continue to keep an eye on the situation. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Rodericksilly (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

They are back. I have added a comment to your comment on their Talk page, to let you know. Rodericksilly (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Furry Vengeance ANI notice

I'm trying to sort out what's happened with you and all the IPs at Furry Vengeance, but one of them just filed an ANI case about it. Wanted to make sure you knew. —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 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 works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

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) 12:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well B. MarnetteD|Talk 17:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much and cheers backatcha! I have not yet indulged in a hot T&J but I just had some of Mom's eggnog, made this time by members of the next-younger generation working under Mom's direction, and doctored with cream sherry. Best wishes for 2020! Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Eddie Rubin spammers

In case you are interested - they are making the same edits internationally. 2601:983:827F:3080:C811:D351:3D38:684A (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty fed up with this as well. Persistent additions of unsourced material, clearly based on personal knowledge, about someone of - at best - marginal notability. What do you think is the best course of action? Should we just let it rest? Rewrite the article from scratch as a much shorter but sourced article (which I certainly don't have any enthusiasm for)? Or just block the very persistent IP editor? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I would opt for blocking the person – it's the easiest. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Eddie Rubin should definitely have an article (even if just a stub). We certainly have less important/relevant/notable musicians from the digital era that have articles simply because a press agent paid for some advertising. So, it is sad to see a "fan club" tarnish his name like this. But the accounts, and the ip addresses, definitely need reined in. 2601:983:827F:3080:C811:D351:3D38:684A (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Frustration with Binksternet

Hey buddy, listen, you're taking your volunteer job on wikipedia way too seriously. You seem to relish holding power as a moderator and threatening to block people from editing. Adding Eddie Rubin to the wrecking crew is not advertising, it's simply adding someone who did some performances with the wrecking crew. And why does it matter so much to the individual with the ID 2601:983:827F:3080:C811:D351:3D38:684A that Eddie is getting credit for something to the point that he come running to you to let you know about every little thing he finds about Eddie. Its abuse of power deciding which musicians can be mentioned in articles and which can't. As long as they're part of the work or recording they have a right to receive credit. Lastly we don't all have time like you to know every detail about wikipedia's rules, so stop assuming that people are being purposely trying to do wrong, we simply just simply are adding factual information and rather than threatening people just explain what's wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.123.228 (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If Rubin took a few session gigs alongside Wrecking Crew regulars that doesn't make him a member. What would make him a member is if the WP:Reliable sources talking about the Wrecking Crew list Rubin as a member, which is not the case. You know this, but you have been coming to Wikipedia to puff up Rubin's career rather than coming here to relay to the reader an accurate summary of what the literature says. Puffing up Rubin's career is what you are doing wrong. Your effort is completely out of proportion to how he's portrayed in the literature. Binksternet (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Hunter Hutchins

You know, Binksternet, you could have yourself explained why it was right to change "1551 CE" to "1551" in the Muromachi period article - instead of defending Hunter Hutchins' totally incorrect approach and appalling attitude.

If you looked at his history, you would see that he has been editing Wikipedia since 2010. Nearly a full decade. And most of the edits he has made, he hasn't bothered giving reasons for them, and has marked them as minor when, most of the time at least, they are not minor at all.

Do you not think that's bad practice - not to mention that it gives the impression that Mr Hutchins thinks "I can edit Wikipedia how I damn well like and I don't give a shit what other users think", which is completely the wrong attitude to have?

If I were you, I would *not* defend Mr Hutchins' approach or attitude, unless he changed them fairly soon. 80.233.35.6 (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Giubbotto non ortodosso is back

Hey Binksternet,

I know in the past you’ve heavily dealt with user:Giubbotto non ortodosso in the past, well they’re back with avenge now under the name of Blueberry72, dead giveaway poorly sourced content, removes them to change to suit and their Italian too all classic Giubbotto non ortodosso. Can you please keep an eye out on them please? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.215.42 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of content on Tulisa staring that the genres were incorrect, their latest effort with The Entertainer (Alesha Dixon album) to say the least. 109.144.212.77 (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

[1] that explains it all 109.144.212.77 (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hearst Castle Peer review

Hi Binksternet - Happy Holidays! There's been some interest at the PR, which has been very useful particularly in relation to prose. But I've not managed to drum up any US perspectives. I've posted notices on the California and National Register of Historic Places Project Talkpages but to no avail to date. I could just push on to FAC but I'd ideally like some further input from US editors first. Any ideas on how I might generate some? While I'm on, how are you on image copyright? It's proving a devil of a job to get a picture of Morgan in. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

KJP1, let me tap my contacts among the local Julia Morgan fans to see if someone can help me figure out how to get her estate to publish a photo free from copyright. Regarding more eyes on the PR, I'll ping some Wikipedians I know. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones

Sorry. I wasn't aware of my undo. Slow screen updates sometimes cause my clicks to hit the wrong link. My apologies. Meters (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It's all good! Cheers... Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

removing military record from info boxes

One could make the argument that the person's date/place of birth/death, education, and family have no relationship to their fame. Should we remove that information also? --rogerd (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the most important stuff we can tell the reader about a person? The most basic important facts appear in the infobox, while the prose fleshes out the facts and adds the less important stuff. Whatever else appears in the infobox – the less important stuff – is noise. I am all about removing noise so that our readers have the most pertinent information available in the easiest format. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, does date/place of birth/death, education, and family qualify as noise in your world? --rogerd (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Depends on the person. I definitely shy away from listing cause of death if it's just natural causes. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

My original point was that if you are going to remove information from the infobox that has no relation to the person's fame (military info), why shouldn't you also remove the person's date/place of birth/death, education, and family? You really haven't answered that. --rogerd (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The date and place of birth are standard fare, expected in an encyclopedia. They are one-line entries in the infobox, unlike the military service module which has battles, awards, service arm, etc. Family is also fairly standard. Education should be judged per person. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year Binksternet!

Happy New Year!

Hello Binksternet:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello Binksternet:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, --A.S. Brown (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Getting closer to countdown!

Hey there, Binks!! HAPPY NEW YEAR!! 🎊 🎉 🥂 🍾 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Time to request protection on California town articles?

Is it time to request protection on California town articles so that they can't be edited by IP editors? This editor appears to be a continuation of this Hanover Research nonsense. Also pinging Antandrus, since the two of you appear to spend far too much time reverting these bozos. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I can do it -- the only reason I haven't is that town articles tend to get useful edits from anons, and long-term protection would prevent that. What do you think, Binksternet? Worth the trouble?

As an aside, if a long-term good faith editor wants to take ownership of any of these edits (see this, for example) I've been letting it go. Antandrus (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

How about this: if the article's history has a majority of IP edits made by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanover Research, then it can be protected from all IPs without too much collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I'll do that. Start with a month. It's easy enough to change. Anyone let me know if there are complaints I miss. Antandrus (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

CAIR Edit

I was attempting to correct that source which appears extremely one-sided, I don’t believe the statement of one so-called “expert” is enough to be a proper verified source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.131.67 (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The source is a scholar who carefully studied CAIR, wrote about his conclusions, and presented those conclusions to a panel of other scholars to make sure it was correct. Which means the source is topnotch. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think studying something means you can just come up with information, is there any factual evidence or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.131.67 (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should summarize WP:SECONDARY sources, also known as third party sources. This is because secondary sources are written by independent observers who do the research and write about their conclusions. Of all the secondary sources available to us, scholarly papers are the best ones, the most reliable and objective ones. Are you looking at any secondary sources which contradict the paper by Lorenzo G. Vidino? If so, you should start a talk page discussion at Talk:Council on American–Islamic Relations and tell the involved editors what your source is and what it says. If you don't have a contradictory source then you don't have any leverage in an argument. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutral notice

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the Underworld Unleashed article

Please look up the talk page of the Underworld Unleashed article for an important message. Then contact me again. I hope you'll give me permission to do what it says. Thank you.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure that I know I'm right here - and I'd like to think that, when it comes right down to it, you know I'm right here. Thank you for your consideration.

By the way, I didn't get the information that I've added to this article only from websites like The Unofficial Guide to the DC Universe and the Comic Book Database, I also got it from the stories themselves after I looked at them myself based on the information in such websites. (UTC)Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem I have with much of your work is that you are analyzing and comparing. The sources don't do that, so your analysis is a violation of WP:No original research. It doesn't matter if you think you're right; the policy against original research is final. Binksternet (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on producer entries in infobox album

A discussion has begun at WT:ALBUMS#RfC on producer entries in infobox album regarding the |producer= parameter used in this infobox. Please add your comments there. – TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape#Ref_3_doesn't_say_anything_about_her_name,_even_in_the_archives.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape#Ref_3_doesn't_say_anything_about_her_name,_even_in_the_archives.. I am surprised it was not considered in the GAR. But you need to comment there now and clarify on this aspect since an editor is using the GAR to block the removal of the name. DBigXrayᗙ 20:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

looks like you missed the thread above where your intervention was sought. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you are too quick. I saw an obvious bit of nonsense and I hit that first. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

There are 3 separate threads on 3 names, consider them separately. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Please do not make blanket WP:Reverts. FYI your revert restored egregious BLP violation (juvenile case) and some vandalism.You also removed content unrelated to the name dispute that was added into the article to as recent updates. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I understand about the recently added material updating the article, so I retained that stuff this time. But there's no BLP violation in adding the name of a widely reported criminal who is an adult now, hiding out under a new name. How could it possibly hurt him for Wikipedia to follow the style of the sources and publish his birth name? Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

    Binksternet, please discuss the content on the talk page not here. DBigXrayᗙ 23:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Annual DS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--DBigXrayᗙ 21:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2012 Delhi gang rape; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Note that you have restored egregious WP:BLP. Please be careful in reverting enmasse.

and Reverting an egregious WP:BLP violations is not considered a WP:3RR DBigXrayᗙ 22:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It's only "egregious" in your mind. Nobody is harmed by using names that have been in the news for six years. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, It is "egregious" and that is a poor justification for BLP violations. I am not reverting you "right now" since i do not intend to edit war with you over this. You are expected to discuss your revert or self revert. DBigXrayᗙ 23:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia BLP policy is here to protect the living person from undue harm. If there's no harm, the policy is not being violated. I'm following the BLP policy very closely, as you will notice. For instance, the WP:BLPCRIME section is there to protect the accused, not the convicted. Afroz was convicted. The WP:BLPNAME section says names of private individuals should be kept private unless it has been "widely disseminated" which in this case is true. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I am saying that it is not clear/confirmed if his name is Afroz. No official confirmation, no legal docs, no reliable sources. You are failing to realize this obvious lack of a BLP requirement on solid sourcing. There are political parties and IT cells in India that work to malign muslims, taking advantage of these incidents for political gains. see 2019_Hyderabad_gang_rape#Attempt_to_communalise --DBigXrayᗙ 23:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I showed you reliable sources, starting with India Today in December 2012. Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources. Legal docs are not applicable here, nor is "official confirmation", whatever that might be. I have no interest whatever in your political maneuvering to protect muslims. My political stance is that I would like to live in a world with less violence committed by men against women. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

"IT cells"? I assume you are talking about a political activist unit associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party. By this admission, you have taken a non-neutral political stance on the topic; one that favors Muslims. I looked again at the 2012 Delhi gang rape article and there's nothing at all about violence between Hindus and Muslims, so I have no idea why you played that card just now. I have no political involvement on the topic: I am neutral. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, please copy paste this on the article talk page. That is the correct place for this discussionDBigXrayᗙ 23:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yet you keep coming here. My talk page or yours is the best place to discuss behavior problems. Or WP:ANI, which would be the next step. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, I don't see any behaviour issue being discussed in your reply before the outdent above. So, please explain what the fuck you are talking about and why you think this is the right place for posting your last comment when we are already discussing it in article talk page. As for my reply, I have already moved my comment there and expect you to reply there. DBigXrayᗙ 00:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I am talking about your admission above that you have a non-neutral political stance on the topic, to protect the interests of Muslims. Non-neutral editing by one person is a behavioral issue. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, Do you understand the difference between "contextual information" and "admission" ? Just like you have made accusation against me, I can also make a similar accusation on you based on your stance here and on the article talk page that "you have a non-neutral political stance on the topic, to attack the interests of Muslims. Non-neutral editing by one person is a behavioral issue." fine ? --DBigXrayᗙ 12:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

"Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors." DBigXrayᗙ 12:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Indian articles under DS

Regarding this edit summary, No I am not overdoing this. you can read more elaboration from Admins about the Discretionary Sanctions on "all Indian articles" here

• Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_69#Does_Jainism_Fall_under_DS_ARBIPA

--DBigXrayᗙ 14:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

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) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

IP user on page Johnny Mathis

Somebody keeps adding to this page's lead a sales figure which is not sourced and conflicts with the List of best-selling music artists page. I'm getting a bit bored with this routine now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:BA6C:AA00:2912:F5DF:FE0E:519 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:BA6C:AA00:6059:9EBB:168D:FA8B

Rodericksilly (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Genres of Circles (Mac Miller album)

There an editor who add these genres like this in the article. I have remove them off the infobox believing these genres do not explicitly said what genre is the album. Since you know how to add genres in articles, what your opinion about these sources discussing the genre of the album [2][3][4][5][6][7]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian source certainly says that the album is emo rap with elements of soft rock and pop. I would list only emo rap based on that source, but is The Guardian the only one saying that? If they are the only one then maybe it's not so well established that the album is emo rap. The AllMusic review says nothing about genre, nor does Exclaim. Pitchfork agrees with Hip Hop DX that the album isn't really a rap album; it's more complicated than that, with songs of various genres throughout the album. Rolling Stone seems to agree, saying that the album has songs of many genres. So if we look at all the sources there's not a single genre that rises up as a consensus. I would leave the genre out of the infobox and instead explain the various genre ideas to the reader in the body of the article. Binksternet (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen any other sources then The Guardian saying the album is emo rap. I think the best for now is to wait for more sources to pop up. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Genres

I added sources for Don't Stop Believing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AltRockFann (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Socking and/or Block evading

If you have concerns about someone is socking and/or block evading, I suggest you report them as such. Simply trawling through their edits and reverting them all on sight, on the basis of what you suspect looks very like edit warring on your part. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Justhear6873, Special:Contributions/Bestforonce39u4 and Special:Contributions/Friendswoths3784

Hi Binksternet. The sockmaster User:Evedentlyuser made three new accounts who continuing the same pattern as previous socks.[8][9][10][11][12][13] Can you open the SPI (also revert its edit in this case)? 2402:1980:241:7E29:79E5:DCB1:19AB:F47A (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I have a lot on my plate right now. If I see more disruption I'll try to write up a sockpuppet report. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Uptown Funk

Hello,

I took a look at the covers you removed by Fleur East and Fifth Harmony and to the wiki article regarding covers, does it need more sources? They seem notable enough to stand alone as covers. If you could elaborate more it would be quite helpful.

Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The main thing about song covers is that our guideline at WP:SONGCOVER sets a very high bar for inclusion. If you see that a secondary source discusses the cover version, that's not quite enough. The guideline specifies one of the following:

• the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song, or
• the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.

The second point is obvious – if it's a charting hit song then of course we list it. The first point requires that the song is what is being discussed, not the artist nor a particular performance nor the album that the song appears on. So for "Uptown Funk" the source should be talking about the song itself, describing how it has been covered by other artists, and listing the artists. Binksternet (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing original research

You keep removing symbols representing other awards already mentioned on other pages (even on well-sourced ones) and kept calling it "original research". Understandable on the research part. Espngeek (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I keep removing symbols representing other awards. The reason is because of the Wikipedia policy of WP:No original research. If a reliable published source can be found saying that all the winners of one award also won a second award, then we can list the second award along with the first. But if there are no sources making this connection, then Wikipedia editors who are making this connection are violating the policy, especially the WP:SYNTH section. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I was just mentioning the fact that some were notable Oscar winning/nominated screenplays, but I'll stop. Espngeek (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. A key point of WP:SYNTH is that the source must be making the connection between the two awards. If the source doesn't mention both awards, then it's not appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of WP:SYNTH, as noted in my post below (added after I reverted one of your edits but before noticing this post). Merely pointing out a correlation between two similar overlapping awards, without stating or implying a thesis connecting them, is NOT a synthesis and thus NOT original research. See WP:NOTSYNTH. --RBBrittain (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Long term abuse

The anon editor at 81.159.237.137 has been repeatedly adding the same material to Parlophone that you identified as being associated with Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Folkestone music vandal. I have reverted a couple of times but more significantly, I see that this editor has updated dozens of music articles in the last few days: see Special:Contributions/81.159.237.137. Is there a suitable reversion bot? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Vulture list

Hi - just wondering if you recall whether there were any bands mentioned on the list that did not have articles. Chubbles (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do recall. A bunch of bands in the list don't have articles, which means the Vulture source is helpful for establishing WP:GNG notability. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a text in the "archives" box above

Hi. Sorry for my temper. 174.253.214.85 removed an "Archived 52" page and added a text in "Archives" box above says "Have to Master you most important common sense short and simple explanation point. Problem solving ability tool list. ..." Can you remove the text. 115.164.185.75 (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I am embarrassed to say I had not noticed the vandalism for the past six or seven weeks. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trap (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020

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 a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Tamer Gunner

Hey man. Any ideas as how best to deal with this sock? I see your last SPI was successful, do you think this sock needs the same or shall one of us take it to the most recent blocking admin? Looking at the edits current and past, I reckon a note to the most recent blocking admin should do the trick. It seems blatantly obvious to me that it is them. Their disruption continues today... Robvanvee 07:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I put an SPI case together just now. Binksternet (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Robvanvee 08:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing – Feature Film

I just reverted your edit removing the flags showing which DGA nominees won or were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Director as well as which DGA nominees' films won the Academy Award for Best Picture because I do NOT believe it violates WP:SYNTH, the section of WP:ORIGINAL that comes closest to supporting your "original research" claim.

The content you removed merely summarizes those DGA winners and nominees that were also relevant Oscar winners and/or nominees, facts that can be verified from the official Oscar database as well as the categories' Wikipedia articles. This content does not contain or establish a thesis, but rather leaves the conclusion up to the reader. Thus, it falls under the explanation at WP:NOTSYNTH#SYNTH is not summary: "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. ... As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy." Thus, the content you removed is not original research and does not violate Wikipedia policy.

If you continue to disagree, please propose your edit on the talk page for this article so that other interested Wikipedia editors can express an opinion and reach a consensus on whether or not it should be included in the article. --RBBrittain (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Type O Negative

I didn't "vandalize" anything. Your discography was WRONG and I edited it. The Origin of the Feces is NOT a studio album. It is a pseudo live EP featuring songs on the first album. It's NOT a studio album

166.62.251.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Kerrang does not agree with you, listing the album as number two (pun intended) in the series of seven studio albums. I don't see any reliable source saying the album was not part of the main sequence. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing flags on Masked Singer

Hello, I have seen that you removed all flags in the "international versions" part of the article Masked Singer ([14][15]), but I don't see any constructive point in your edits. Masked Singer is now a international franchise like other television programs in Category:Television franchises such as Got Talent, The X Factor, Idols, The Voice, .... But I don't know why you focused only on Masked Singer to remove flags. If you think your point is right, please do it fairly at all articles in that category with no exception. Thank you! Kenny htv (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, those other articles should have their flags removed. Binksternet (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Raider Klan

Can I get your opinion about the list of "past members" in the Raider Klan infobox? You discussed a similar topic at Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 10#RfC: Should the members of a defunct group continue to be listed under the heading "Past members"? The list seems excessive, and this discussion addresses how an infobox is a place for key facts. My feeling is that any pushback to a mass delete of all the non-notables in that parameter will lead to an RfC. I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What exactly do you propose, and why? Are you looking for a split between "past members" who left the group before the final showing, and the members of the band who stayed until the last moment? If so, I'm all for it. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Um...no. Never mind. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Air Force One and Saving Private Ryan edits

The name "Alexander" for Radek's character in the credits of Air Force One is apparently a goof; he is called Ivan Radek by the characters, especially in the opening speech. As for Saving Private Ryan, even if we are to keep how it how the scenes are described in the article, it should be noted we don't really see Ryan departing with his family after the salute, although it probably would have happened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZgoufN99n8 79.69.227.38 (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ivan could be a nickname. Alexander is in the sources. Regarding your interpretation of Saving Private Ryan, it appears to be unique to you. All the sources I've seen discussing the plot assume the old man is Ryan. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I never denied that the man was Ryan; I was just pointing out that we don’t actually see him depart with his family after the salute, as the plot currently says. I even linked the clip above to show that we don’t see him leave.79.69.227.38 (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You wrote that Ryan "transforms" from young to old, which is never seen in the film. Rather, the scene shifts from a battle for the fictional "Ramelle" bridge in the Cotentin peninsula during WWII to many years later, in a war cemetery near Utah Beach, a different place. Ryan doesn't stand in one place and transform from young to old. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the editing showing young Ryan becoming old Ryan in the sequence as shown in the beginning of the above clip could be described as a transformation, right? And again, as I point out, we don’t see him depart after the salute, unlike what the plot currently says.79.69.227.38 (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I was wrong. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Shall I try editing again to remove this small error from the plot?79.69.227.38 (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

About my last Mother's Milk correction

Just so we're on the same page, did you just revert my edits because of the suspicion of block evasion? Because as I said in my last correction there I used http://www.grun1.com/utils/timeCalc.html to count the track lengths on that page and it's exactly 45:00, not 45:02. Blacknuz (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bill Porter - 1977 - Des Moines.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bill Porter - 1977 - Des Moines.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Al Garvey

Binksternet, I noticed that you just removed this nomination from the DYK nominations page because the article had been rewritten and gone in a different direction.

There's no reason that I can see why you can't simply restore the nomination while updating the nomination page to reflect the new content and name (don't move the nomination page, just strike the old hook and provide a new one, and mention why). Your original nomination was on time; you can continue with the nomination by updating it. However, if you were to try to nominate the Al and Barbara Garvey article later, it would need to be 5x expanded within the past seven days of that nomination or to become a GA first.

If you don't restore the nomination, you'll be getting a note from one of the DYK bots saying that the nomination hasn't been transcluded—effectively, by removing it from the nominations page, you've left it in limbo. Eventually, we'll have to close it, assuming you don't have it deleted first.

It seems a shame to withdraw the nomination in this way, but of course it's up to you if you no longer want to pursue the nomination. I just wanted you to know that there's nothing in the DYK rules to prevent you from updating this nomination to reflect the updated article content. Best of luck in whatever you decide to do. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't think there's enough material to expand it a further 5×, which is why I removed the nom. I will not pursue the DYK route. Binksternet (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, my point was that a further 5x is not needed; you're grandfathered because you nominated a valid article, and it's still long enough to count based on the original nomination. Articles have changed far more than this one subsequent to nomination and still been considered valid based on its state at the point of the original nomination. If you change your mind, let me know. Alternatively, you can simply have the DYK template page deleted as instructed by the bot for untranscluded nominations, using the G7 speedy deletion template. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Well if you think it could still pass then I will restore it to the list. I'll write a new note about the changes. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Great. I see you've done that. I've made technical adjustments to the nomination page to reflect the new name of the article. You might want to consider writing an ALT hook that mentions Barbara as well as Al. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Those edits on NIN

That was me plus their I guess nicknames are literally HALO. Please answer me why you removed them. Tee wew28 (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I looked around to try and figure out what you are talking about, Tee wew28, but I got nowhere. Can you give me another clue? Or a diff? That would really help. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have a suspicion they are referring to this (1, 2, 3) and my reverting it. Correct me if I am wrong Tee wew28. Robvanvee 05:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You are right Tee wew28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Halo those edits were because of the...I guess nicknames of those songs and EPs and LPs.Tee wew28 (talk) 21.03.20 —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Al and Barbara Garvey

Hello, I am interested in reviewing this nomination. Please see my question at Template:Did you know nominations/Al Garvey and look for a full review to follow. Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Surfer Girl album - Beach Boys

Hi Binksternet,

Just wanted to inform you that while normally a message board would not be a good source, the author is Craig Slowinski, who is the official sessionographer/archivist for the band. Much of his information not revealed in official releases or the ESQ magazine is revealed on the board.

Thanks, EPBeatles (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I would much rather see Craig Slowinski publishing his research by way of Endless Summer Quarterly or even an essay at beachboysarchives.com.[16] A discussion forum is not very polished; researchers often make statements that they later find to be flawed because of new evidence. But an essay or article stands as an intended publication – all the fact-checking is assumed to have been completed, the various sources weighed and balanced, the writer planting a flag in the sand and saying "this is it".

WP:SPS says that internet forums "are largely not acceptable as sources." It says that an established expert may be cited, but a better source would be preferred.

I am further unsettled by your statement that Slowinski decides to share in the online forums "information not revealed" by more substantial publications. That makes me suspect this stuff is not as reliable as it should be. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Understandable; usually it's because ESQ hasn't gotten around to those albums yet, or if they have, I haven't been able to buy copies yet. EPBeatles (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims

Thanks. Seems to be the same person. But why hasn't the page archived? Doug Weller talk 13:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Even after a dozen years on the wiki, I haven't figured out all the automatic functions. But I just manually archived the talk page, so maybe that's enough. Binksternet (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I did get my archive working but I've got much better things to do! I did think you might be a genius at archiving though. :) Doug Weller talk 17:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Reporting that annoying person for a disruptive edit

You know the one. That person did a disruptive edit on another of the pages I edit...again.--Historyday01 (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Harassment from a position of ignorance

Cease your false accusation. If you repeat it, I will report you for bias and harassment. My edit was appropriately worded and structured in keeping with the rest of the article. It's not my fault you don't know anything about the subject - maybe you should do a bit of research before lecturing others and deleting content with a false and unsubstantiated accusation regarding the intent of the user? Here is the history of the Fender Richie Sambora Stratocaster, which proves he was a Fender artist with a signature series which endured throughout and beyond the 90s. http://richiesambora.weebly.com/guitars.html Here is the Reverb page showing some for sale: https://reverb.com/marketplace?query=Fender%20Richie%20Sambora I dare you to find one thing in my edit that is not supported by the evidence. Go ahead, I'll wait. What's that? It's because I didn't source my edit? Oh really? So why haven't you deleted the section on the 2000s? Entirely unsourced. You can't even be consistent. Some editor you are. Please leave the Richie Sambora page to people who know what they are talking about. Thanks. 82.10.117.175 (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the 80s section, four times longer than the edit I made, is also lacking any sources. Can you explain why you have not deleted that? 82.10.117.175 (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The section has been tagged since 2011 for its violation of WP:No original research. I deleted your work because it just piled on more of the same.

Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources. Primary sources such as guitar manufacturer websites and retail sales sites are of limited usefulness as they don't usually establish the importance of a fact in a larger context. We the editors are tasked with summarizing primary, secondary and tertiary sources for the reader, balancing the importance to keep it relevant for most of our readers.

So what I did instead was to look up some secondary sources and summarize them to make a more complete picture of Sambora's guitars, but one that's based on already published works. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Completely ignoring my points, a false claim, and another false accusation, and then acting like you chose to fix it despite only doing so to backtrack on your mistake. Did you think I wouldn't notice? I did not add "more of the same". The article, under a heading "Instruments and equipment", had a section for the 80s and a section for the 2000s - but not one for the 90s. It was clearly incomplete. I added a section for the 90s. I worded and structured it in a way which was consistent with the existing material. It was not vandalism. It was not unconstructive. It contributed to the improvement of article: it filled a gap with new information. How is that "piling on more of the same"? (Note your language: "piled on" - very revealing, Binky, very revealing.) Yes, it was unsourced. So was everything else in the section. And no, the whole section was not tagged: that is a lie. Only the 2000s section was tagged; the 80s section, four times longer than my contribution and completely unsourced, despite running into commentary, was not tagged. But even so, the 2000s was tagged since 2011 but it was okay to stay that whole time, but my contribution which filled an obvious gap in the article wasn't allowed to stay for an hour?

Don't be so arrogant as to lie about something easily proved a lie. You deleted only my contribution and accused me of disruptive editing, an accusation which was NOT supported by Wikipedia's definition. If you don't know the rules, don't throw the rule book at people. If you were a good editor, you would have flagged the lack of sourcing in the section as a whole, and sought contributions. Had you been a polite and courteous individual, you could have thanked me for expanding and completing the section, and invited me to provide sources. But no: delete, false accusation, pile on the user. Talk about nonconstructive. Then double down with a lie and a second false accusation.

Yes, I know you don't like unregistered users. I really don't care. The rules let me edit, and this is not your playground. I suggest that you treat this as a learning experience and do better in future. Treat people with respect. Read the rules before you continue to involve yourself in the work of others. Get your story straight before attempting to justify your actions. Don't lie. Until you do those things it is irrelevant how many edits you can boast of on your vanity page, you will be a substandard and inconsistent editor.

I'm off work for a few days, so I might track what you are doing elsewhere to see if this is how you behave to other users generally and needs reporting. I will definitely check that you do not censor or delete any of my comments on this matter, including here. I do not and will not tolerate bullies. 82.10.117.175 (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You're free to rifle through my contributions; they are public record. Have fun. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you are referring to this edit then yes, it was indeed disruptive. Please read this policy and especially the bit that says The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, though based on your logic 2 wrongs make a right. There is no need to throw your toys out of the cot over this, accusing an experienced editor of "false accusations", "lies" and getting unnecessarily personal. Stick to content and I suggest you read the civility policy too. For the record, had I come across your edit I would have done the same! Robvanvee 15:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Strange statement on your part

I think this quotes (in Warsaw uprising) is appropriate. Or don't you like what it says? Be more tolerant to another opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.81.221.211 (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You're jumping to conclusions about my motivations. I was simply thinking about the guideline Wikipedia:Summary_style which directs us to be concise, and about the guideline Wikipedia:Quotations which directs us not to overuse quotes. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I can also express an opinion about your haste in judgment. I didn't post page-sized quotes. In my opinion, they are very brief and informative. 93.81.221.211 (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Tokio Hotel Album Credits

I left a reliable source on the Humanoid_(album) album page that contains scans of the liner notes from the album booklet. I am trying to accurately represent the songwriters and producers on each Tokio Hotel song. Right now, the page has no source whatsoever for the credits and they make no sense because there are different credits for the same songs (just in different languages). What's the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:4500:D6C0:928:AD04:742:1359 (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to the album booklet credits. I wasn't seeing that level of detail anywhere else. The booklet is enough to support your changes. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Airing

these series are also airing in Pakistan with Urdu dubbing, and you people are also adding other broadcast so why Pakistan not, please tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.211.189.147 (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Because it's not important. The guideline WP:TVINTL says something about that. We don't list every country that airs a show. Binksternet (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

But, There are also mentioned other international broadcast countries, of these cartoons, and WP:TVINTL and there is not mentioned India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.211.189.147 (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Axl Rose instruments

Whatever. Guess he only played the piano on a few hundred gigs. For example David Bowie has Vocals, guitar, keyboards, saxophone and freakin harmonica listed. Go edit that too and while you're at it take care of the say 85% of bass players who have guitar listed without practically ever professionally playing one. People like you are the reason I seldom edit Wikipedia. Not because of this revert but what kind of guy you seem to be according to this page. Have a nice day. Rantalaiho74 (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Do writers refer to him as a piano player? Was playing piano part of his fame? Not so much to both. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The Cheetah Girls (group)

Hi Binksternet,

This Diff confuses me, I am not behind the IP 173.79.253.126 and was only trying to repair the infobox as it was broken by the IPs edits. Therefore, no block evasion at all. - - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 09:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You're fine! I was reaching past your edits to reverse this kind of stuff from the IP vandal, saying that the group has started back up after disbanding. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The controversies will not tail off

So it's more complex after all?

Can one give a date range for Wikidata items? Shenme (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I see what you did there. :)

I don't know if Wikidata can handle a date range. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Compact Cassette - Cassette Tape

Hi, I requested renaming the Cassette Tape article back to Compact Cassette. Please, vote when the voting opens. Thanks! Mikus (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Breaskfast in America (song)

Breakfast in America is not a Rick Davies song, even if it's a song credited Davies/Hodgson like all the songs from 1971 to 1982 (except one). All your last changes are mistakes (you are talking to a Supertramp fan!). Breakfast in America is a song written around 1967 by Roger Hodgson at his mother home before Supertramp was created! How could Rick Davies have written a song he didn't seem to like at first? On 2010 Tour he even didn't play any keyboards on it, just backing vocals. Most of Supertramp songs since the 2nd LP are written by the main lead singer on it except "School" and "Just a Normal Day" which are collaborations between Hodgson and Davies. And the others songs that I had mentionned (From Now On, My Kind of Lady, Oh Darling or Crime of the Century) are also more popular than some already mentioned (Gone Hollywood).

There are a lot of mistakes also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast_in_America_(song) and also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast_in_America

Click on the following links, you will see I'm right about Breakfast in America! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tODaH_fGtMY or here: https://www.rogerhodgson.com/documents/interviewarizonarepublic.html

I'm not here to give an opinion but just correcting errors on the wikipedia pages I read when I go on it. So most of the time, I'm not log in when I make small changes!

I hope my english is correct, because it's not my mother tongue!

Celtic1981 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I have seen Roger Hodgson claim more credit than the record shows. He's a lot more publicity-seeking than Rick Davies, talking to the media much more, which makes his version of events seem more true. I don't entirely trust his version of events.

What I see is the song "Breakfast in America" is credited to Rick Davies in the liner notes of the 12-inch vinyl LP Breakfast in America (1979). Each song is credited to one man – Hodgson or Davies, but never both. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

One example of the disconnect shown by Hodgson is this webpage from Hodgson's website listing which songs were written by Hodgson alone. Included among them is "The Logical Song", listed as Hodgson by himself, but Supertramp producer and engineer Peter Henderson says that Davies contributed some lyric to "The Logical Song", so the song should have been listed as having two composers, both Hodgson and Davies. It is not; only Hodgson is credited. This makes me more suspicious of Hodgson's assertions. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Chief Antonio Deinde Fernandez

Hello, Binksternet...

I was wondering why you deleted my references to Chief Fernandez' pre-nominal honorific. Even if you fault the citation that was initially provided, the use of the style Chief (Antonio Deinde) Fernandez is also supported by at least one of the cited sources that are still part of the article following your edit.

Things like this perplex me. I can understand wanting to conform to general verifiability, but a situation where two different sources are given for a chiefly honorific to be used - and yet are nevertheless deemed to not be good enough - is odd when it is compared to the Wikipedia practice in terms of British knights. Without exaggerating, I'll tell you for free that I've come across situations where the use of Sir in the opening paragraph and infobox isn't supported by a citation of any kind.

Be that as it may, I will refrain from restoring the honorific until I receive a response as a courtesy to you since we have some history.

Here's hoping that you are well, O.ominirabluejack (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll restore the chieftaincy title. Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi! I'm pretty new to wikipedia editing and recently made an edit to the Ambient Music page, which you reverted because you said I didn't put an adequate edit summary. I did write a sentence for the edit summary which I can still see on the history tab - so what about it wasn't adequate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.204.236 (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't have a problem with your edit summary, which was informative.

The reason I reverted your edit was because you removed an audio example of ambient sound. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

RE: Chief Antonio Deinde Fernandez

Hello, Binksternet...

I just wanted to say thank you for restoring the honorifics. It is appreciated.

Here's hoping that you have happy holidays, O.ominirabluejack (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Apple Music editors' notes

Can we use Apple Music editors' notes? [17] However did not find evidence of editorial oversight. 2402:1980:307:4239:65E3:8AF4:FE87:2911 (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

And no listed author, which makes Apple Music a big problem for reliability. However, the removal of Britpop in that diff is correct, as the source does not call the album Britpop. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020

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 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

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) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

Since you are on the Peer Review volunteers list, I wondered if you would care to look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom/archive1? It's had one reviewer, but I would feel a lot more comfortable if at least one more person looked at it before putting it up for FA. I was about to archive it, so please let me know soon if you are going to be able to do something so I can hold off on the archive. SpinningSpark 13:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'll review. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I look forward to your comments. SpinningSpark 18:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I want to ask why my edits on 21 Savage, Meek Mill, and 3.15.20 were reverted. I have followed the guidelines. Meandeminem (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's one of the reversions: At 3.15.20, you cited RCA Records – https://www.rcarecords.com/news/childish-gambino-releases-a-summer-pack-of-new-music-summertime-magic-and-feels-like-summer – to say that the song "Feels Like Summer" was a single. The cited source does not say the song was a single. Rather, the source says "Summertime Magic" is the first "official single" from Gambino's upcoming album. "Feels Like Summer" was released at the same time as "Summertime Magic" as part of a two-song "summer pack". In a sense, the source is saying "Feels Like Summer" is the B-side to "Summertime Magic", though it's not stated explicitly. Binksternet (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Nu metal genre warrior from Texas

Hi Binksternet. Is the user a "nu metal genre warrior from Texas"? (I added new section in the LTA) It look very similar to other IPs. 2402:1980:2A0:B303:9B0A:9056:6671:1AFC (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not completely sure about the Texas-moves-to-Russia part of the LTA case. But Aljan2000 appears to be from Russia (see his first-ever edit) and his style is the exact same as Russian IP Special:Contributions/85.173.131.169 who is listed in the LTA case. Binksternet (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of reference columns in Cthulhu Mythos articles, and the deleted page to which they referred

Namely, the articles Cthulhu Mythos deities and Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos.

Those reference columns, and that deleted page (moved to here), indicated which being/creature/character/etc. was from which story, which seems like very useful information. Shouldn't that information be reincorporated into the articles in some way? ZFT (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it could be reincorporated, but as standard footnotes rather than the peculiar two- and three-character code I removed two years ago. The odd codes were deleted before I arrived on the scene; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cthulhu Mythos reference codes and bibliography. My work was an extension of the earlier deletion. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Revision on Björk

Dear mister,

Not be rude but there's a collaboration of more than two decades between both artists (Björk and Leila).

How's that not a significant edit?

There's even an official documentation of Björk and Leila's collaboration.

http://www.bjork.fr/Leila-Arab

https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/78wnvx/leila-arab-looks-back-on-nearly-twenty-years-of-collaboration-with-bj%C3%B6rk Instinkertje (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Björk is very important in Leila's career. But the converse is not true.

The instructions for the infobox may be seen at Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts, where it says that we should only list acts that are very important to the biography subject. Leila doesn't meet that mark. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits

I have noticed that you have been undoing most of my edits in Wikipedia ever since you entered the Frank Zappa page claiming that I was "misrepresenting" a quote of his. You probably think I'm a new user but I have been in Wikipedia since January 2007 under another user name. I am going to ask you to stop reverting my edits in what seems to be a childish attempt to question my validity here. If you ignore my petition and persist on undoing my edits I will report you for administrative abuse and will request the people on top to remove you as an administrator. Thanks. --Lightning in the sky (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

If your edits were solid and useful I would not have a problem with them. But they are unreferenced and trivial,[18][19] or they have poor English,[20] or they are simply unreferenced.[21]

You have been "shooting from the hip" – a violation of WP:No original research – rather than summarizing published sources for the reader. From now on, please cite WP:SECONDARY sources to support your edits. After 13 years on Wikipedia you will want to learn how it works.

I'm not an administrator. I'm just an active editor who removes a lot of trivia and original research. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Regards to WP:FLAGCRUFT on certain articles.

Hello,

I just want to be certain why flag icons aren't allowed to be placed next to countries names, specifically for Survivor (franchise) & The Farm (franchise). I have read the WP:FLAGCRUFT that you have directed me to and I don't see how a flag next to it's country's name breaks Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. Why is it an issue if a country's flag icon is next to its name? In certain cases, when a region is co-producing a series, (such as the Arab world, Baltic states & Africa), it is not indicated which parts of the region have participated in their version of the show. It helps breakdown to readers which countries participated & which ones have not without favouring nor disregarding certain countries with any sort of bias. It is purely factual with no bias whatsoever. In some cases (such as Australian Survivor) where a flag icon is located next to a winner of a season, I agree that a flag icon next to the winner is unnecessary due to the fact that (for example, Australian Survivor) casts contestants that reside in Australia or have Australian citizenship but live abroad. In either case, a flag icon next to the winner is unnecessary. A flag icon next to its country though, helps readers easily identify which flag belongs to which country. In which case, it is necessary to have in the article. And again, it does not break Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy.

If you could reach out to me, that'd be much appreciated so we can discuss this more and understand each other's point of view on the subject matter.

With kind regards, Nintenga

Flag icons can be used "where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams." For instance, in the Olympics, the athletes are sponsored by their countries.

But for television shows such as Survivor, Dancing with the Stars and The Voice, the contestants are not sponsored by their countries. They represent themselves! Their nationality is an interesting detail but it is not the primary identifier of the contestant. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

With your argument, flag icons can be used when such versions of Survivor represent the countries or nationalities taking part, such as the Baltic states. Some versions of the shows enable a battle of the nations sort of season in which this would be an appropriate act to use the flag icons to help tell the reader which countries are taking part without violating Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. Your argument about the contestants is one that I agreed with you on in that a flag icon did not need to appear next to the winner of a particular season. I see no reason why you need to state they represent themselves when we had already agreed to that sentiment. A flag icon next to the country's name, however, I still fail to see how it is not appropriate to have it be placed there. Again, it helps address the reader the flag of the country to help distinguish any possible confusion to what the country's flag may be. In addition, it is informative to the reader as, if there were any confusion, they now know which flag belongs to which country. It's not identifying the contestants, it's identifying the country. The sponsorship argument you make, I can see it to a certain extent. Yes, for events sponsored by their country I can see it being useful for events such as the Olympics like you stated. I don't see how it's only limited to that though. Obviously they're not sponsored by their country, yet there is nothing that states that flag icons may only be used for instances such as military units or national sport teams. In instances such as X Factor Malta, the show is sponsored by the Maltese Public Broadcaster PBS to help decide their contestant for Eurovision. In that instance, the flag icon for Malta should remain in place next to it's country's name. I see no reason why flag icons are not allowed to be placed next to its country's name nor do I see any reason that disallows flag icons to only be used for instances such as a national sports team or the Olympics. Kind regards, Nintenga 09:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

References

I agree that the Eurovision Song Contest is similar to the Olympics, with contestants representing their country. I disagree about Survivor in the Baltic.

When it's important to represent the nationality of a Survivor contestant, you can do it by adding the name of the nation but without the flag icon. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

DJ Snake being involved in CDM Genre

Hi Binksternet,

Thanks for the check in on the DJ Snake and CDM pages. This is an emerging genre from the Caribbean that is an offshoot from EDM that was brought into the mainstream by Major Lazer. DJ Snake is definitely a contributor to the genre and part of the CDM community and his song Fuego featuring Sean Paul and Anitta was included in iHeartRadio's official Caribbean dance music playlist which you can find here [22]. Hope this helps clear up any confusion. Thanks.

"Emerging" means what? To me it means "not here yet". Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"Emerging" means according to Merrian-Webster dictionary is newly formed or prominent. So definitely here, just new. CaribbeanCurator

How to cite a reliable source

How do I cite a reliable source when I don't provide it?

Like in this case, on the Shirley Brown song "Woman to Woman"? If one of the existing references says it was recorded in 1974, or that it was released in the month of August in 1974, then you would name the reference and cite that. Please read Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once.

Let me know if that was the answer you were looking for. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit Warring over Bands

Dear Binksternet (talk), I am not trying to create an edit war on purpose, if you see me as totally misguided that is fine, but I am only applying changes to a band page like Lamb of God where there are ample sources that explain the guitar roles even if a majority just say guitars the general consensus outside of these sources seem to state Mark Morton as the primary lead guitarist of the band. For example, even bands like Metallica have both guitarists (James Hetfield and Kirk Hammett, as just "guitars") even though its clearer there that Kirk Hammett is the primary guitarist. I like many others see the LOG guitar section under a similar light as Metallica and other bands. I personally have left a message on the talk page of the article explaining my views and I hope that we can agree to disagree if we have opposing viewpoints. I am not changing edits with any malicious intent (I have Aspergers, which is on the Autism Spectrum), and I have found editing Wikipedia as a way to distract myself from what is currently going on outside. I hope to hear back from you soon on ways in which we can resolve this conflict of interest thanks, --Miked1992 (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Miked1992--Miked1992 (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Steven Tyler/Your Credentials

Binksternet, I hope you and I can settle our dispute here about whether the piece about Steven Tyler being invited by now-president Trump to the 2015 Republican Presential Debate can be put to rest. Also, I really admire all the work you have done for Wikipedia and cannot help but be very impressed with everything you've written about and contributed to, it's very cool! I'd very much like to become as accomplished as you are as I progress as a Wikipedian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.237.58 (talk • contribs)

Let me look at it later today. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I saw nothing about Tyler being a registered Republican. And he wasn't confirmed as a guest of Trump, it was just reporters seeing him with Trump's people. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I saw your Hatting

I saw your hatting on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Stalin and it seems like HarveyCarter. Was on the Operation Barbarossa page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Barbarossa&action=history Just wanted to show an experienced, user my findings hope it helps.Driverofknowledge (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)