User talk:Binksternet/Archive62

Jose Feliciano discography

Back in June an IP user changed some stats, and I reverted them with an explanation as to why the original information was correct. Now what looks like another IP user has reverted my edit, but I would guess it's the same person. Is there a particular course of action to take at this point? Danaphile (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like a much bigger problem! Someone using multiple IPs from Venezuela has been inflating a bunch of stats and certs for selected music articles. I will look into this further and post a block request at WP:ANI. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm wrong; I jumped to conclusions after seeing a bunch of this person's work reverted... The great majority of the work done by this person is okay, and should not have been reverted. I looked for other falsehoods but I could find only those two incorrect sales figures associated with Latin certs.[[1][2] That was certainly an instance of edit warring with two IPs (a violation of WP:MULTIPLE) but I don't think it's appropriate to report this person. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Should I just revert this most recent edit? Danaphile (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Update: Someone already has. Danaphile (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Verone66?

This seems quite obvious but you are the resident expert, so, does Special:Contributions/2601:2C6:4B7F:86C0:0:0:0:C96A fit? --Muhandes (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, looks like they have been working this same IP6 range for six weeks. Special:Contributions/2601:2C6:4B7F:86C0:0:0:0:0/64 needs a block. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I reverted some of their edits. Do we have an LTA report to link? --Muhandes (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

No LTA report has been written, I'm afraid. You could mention that Special:Contributions/2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:0/64 is blocked for the same reason, and Special:Contributions/99.23.39.93 has been blocked four times... Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe they are on Special:Contributions/99.116.10.239 now, and looking at those contributions, that's not the first time. --Muhandes (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That's them. That IP just came off a two-year block. Binksternet (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the verification, I am starting to see the pattern. Can you ask maybe ask for an extension of that block? --Muhandes (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to previous election announcement

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Significant contributor

I noticed your significant contributor page. You're not the first one I've noticed with something like this, but I never really thought about it much until now. What constitutes being a significant contributor to an article? Is there a set threshold or criteria somewhere that I'm not aware of? Hey man im josh (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I just go by feels. If I spent a lot of energy helping the article then it gets listed. The article must have been initially created by others. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Paul Gilley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Gilley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gilley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Tom Reedy (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Album length trivia

Is prose on a band's "longest album," etc., acceptable/necessary to add to album pages here? There's a user who seems intent on adding this info to an album page while citing no source for the information, which strikes me as WP:OR. I looked it up and thought it might fall under WP:CALC, but I think this is actually more accurately a "comparison of statistics," which the page discourages. Also, I can't find any reliable source that supports the info, otherwise I would just add it.—The Keymaster (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

That kind of stuff is trivial and unimportant unless the media state the same fact. Without media support it's undue emphasis on a minor detail. Worse is the comparison between various album lengths because that takes a WP:Synthesis of sources to achieve, moving beyond WP:CALC. CALC is about facts that are already present in the article, such as adding up referenced recording dates to state the total time in the studio. The user should be reverted for adding trivia. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

That was pretty much my thinking as well. Thanks for the confirmation, as well as the clarification on WP:SYNTH. Cheers! — The Keymaster (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Bizarre, hostile, and overwrought message, and inappropriate / bad faith reversion

I found the following bizarre, hostile message on the ISP page I'm currently linked in to:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Greenland (film), you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Don't expand the plot section beyond 700 words, per WP:FILMPLOT. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I certainly did make the changes to the Greenland (film) web page that you reverted, and searched through them to try to work out what you have become so overwrought about, but could find nothing. I didn't count the number of words in the redacted summary text, either when I made the first edit nor when checking it, but I can't really credibly believe that you would use such a lame excuse for reverting the changes I made. I didn't add much to the text already there, and since they were mainly grammar and style improvements (e.g. consistent use of present tense and replace passive voice) they don't warrant your reaction, nor your reversion.

For the present, I'm going to presume that there's something wrong with you. Perhaps you were having a bad day for some other reason, or perhaps you have an inappropriate emotional attachment to an article that belongs to the world, not to you. If you can sensibly explain the actual change that set you off, please post more messages on the user page, or here, and I'll check for them. To the best of my limited knowledge, I didn't make a single change that was contrary to the Wikipedia MOS, and if I did, I'd appreciate your pointing it out to me – although skip any part about "over 700 words" in as you've deservingly earned my contempt with that one.

I would warn you that regardless of your feelings about the article, it is never appropriate to threaten another editor with banning over "good-faith edits" that are obviously not vandalism. You are way out of line. Knock it off.
71.94.235.196 (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, something is "wrong" with me: I mistook your IP address for another which persistently adds excessive text to plot descriptions. Sorry about that. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Apology warranted and accepted, but my scold stands as-is. It doesn't matter whether you mistook the IP address or not. You made the reversion and posted the threat without actually looking at the changes. Your response may be valid in cases of a miscreant poster, but your admirable apology needs to be backed up by improved future behavior. Like inspecting carefully before you mouth-off. You should also consider undoing your "bad faith" reversion. The charge I gave also stands: Knock it off.

71.94.235.196 (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I will continue to revert excessive plot descriptions per WP:FILMPLOT. I do it a lot and will keep doing it a lot. Your plot description addition was too large, bringing the size to 737 words. Also, the reflist template forms its own columns now; it doesn't need to know how many ems wide the columns should be. Binksternet (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Swastika sources you found

Thank you, I was sure I hadn't imagined it. Since you found them, would you cite the best one at Swastika#Etymology and nomenclature at By the 19th century, the term swastika was adopted into the English lexicon, [...]. Ok? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I will do so. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida

Please stop vandalising that article. State your case on the discussion page. Just because YOU don't want to accept something doesn't mean that it is not so. There are multiple WP:RS. What actually is your objection? 197.87.63.175 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

South African IPs edit-warring at In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida (album)

Someone in Johannesburg is consistently edit-warring to restore greatly inflated, unrealistic sales figures at In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida (album). They participated in the 2020 Dispute Resolution Noticeboard discussion, but they also persistently return here to restore dubious numbers. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• 2020: 197.87.101.28 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2020: 197.87.143.7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2020: 197.87.101.101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2021: 197.86.195.204 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2022: 197.87.63.175 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Chris Kirkpatrick Page

I have added references for all the parts you mentioned and included some additional ones where necessary, removed unnecessary words, and provided details for the tv shows he appeared in. Katerpillarfly (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the page to the edits that was previously agreed on by us since it was mostly all deleted recently. Katerpillarfly (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Pertaining to 175.176.0.0/19

Hi Binksternet, I seen you reverted edits made by the IPs within 175.176.0.0/19 on multiple Korean articles, thanks a lot! Would like to know if there is any other ways to stop them, other than reverting, as I'm so sick and tired of them adding unsourced content and/or adding factual errors content. They have also tried to avoid scruitinizing by adding content with reliable source however the source itself doesn't states whatever they're adding. I have tried reporting 175.176.24.0/24 and 175.176.26.0/24 on WP:AIV yesterday but no admin are willing to act upon (which I understand since these are range IP) hence became the report became stale and their disruptive editing continues. Also noticed that they are changing their IP within that range like every 30–45 minutes which is quite weird imo. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The next step is to describe the problem at WP:ANI to convince some administrator to set a rangeblock. AIV is for quick assessment and quick solutions, whereas ANI is for more thorough invesigation of larger problems. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet Oh yes WP:ANI, unfortunately my previous attempts pertaining also to rangeblocking is unsuccessful with literally no admins willing to reply to the thread, with only non-admin replying, after which the bot just auto-archived it. That was previously concerning a similar behaviour to this Philippines-originated IP range but originating from Japan instead where they would constantly vandalized any namespace related to Loona and also Chuu (singer), for example this diff. I actually included bunch of IPs range (like 10+ because they kept hopping around various range, be it IPv4 or IPv6) in which that Japan-originated vandal IP has added that content found in the example diff, and also bunch of diff as evidence, pretty extensive and detailed but nobody (as in admin) bothered, maybe because the scale of IPs range involved is too big, not sure either since no admin replied hence couldn't find any insight if my assumptions is correct. I think I monitor for now, they seem to have stop (hopefully for long term) disruptive editing to music articles. Thanks! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That sucks! I'll report the IP range myself when I get the chance. I need to make a strong case. Binksternet (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022

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 Australian military leadership and Nick-D on the First Crusade's Byzantine connection

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) 21:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

mob rules

Yo man stag the articles of deletion log thing for mob rules Ytzesza (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Cattle Decapitation's first full length albums

I'm pretty sure my information was correct about Human Jerky being Cattle's first album. I don't remember where I found the interview, but Travis Ryan himself said that Human Jerky is a full length release. I don't think he mentioned Homovore, though. However, Three One G backup my statement about Human Jerky on their website. Another thing to consider is that "Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives" list both Human Jerky and Homovore as full length. I'll provide links below to Three One G and The Metal Archives regarding this

https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Cattle_Decapitation/Human_Jerky/416612

https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Cattle_Decapitation/Homovore/7427

https://threeoneg.com/archive/vinyl/cattle-decapitation-human-jerky-cd DeathMetalVeteran (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Human Jerky is a 12-inch vinyl release that runs at 45 rpm. The 26 songs run a little over 16 minutes, meaning that the songs are under a minute long on the average. It's not an LP! It's an EP. Homovore is only 21:40 in length, the size of one LP side. These are both EPs, and they don't count toward total studio album counts. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

26 songs? What version of Human Jerky are you talking about? I own the album and/or "EP" on CD, and I've looked at all of the vinyl formats available for purchase, both reissue and original, and they all list 18 songs only DeathMetalVeteran (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I got it wrong. Still a 45 rpm half-size disc. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I.P. user

Starting the 23rd of September, an editor whose using multiple i.p. addresses keeps reverting edits to the PJ Harvey page (regarding reissued albums). Although a discussion started on the talk page, I'm assuming it most likely won't amount to much; given the nature of this editor's edit summaries, and arguments. If you're willing/able to lend your input it would be greatly appreciated. Blastmaster11 (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on the range Special:Contributions/92.195.79.71/17 which is larger than just this one disruptive editor, but not by much. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Also Special:Contributions/92.193.177.206/19. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Ampex Quadruplex

Dear Binksternet: If you look at the relevant passage: There is also no source for citing the Type C format. However, if you look into the corresponding articles for type C and type B, you will see that they were in the market around the same time - decades after Quadruplex - and how relevant they were back in the days. If you follow your own logic, you should have also deleted the remark regarding type C.

I have no idea whatsoever why you deleted the the link to Bing Crosby Enterprises. The acrononym BCE is hardly known amongst today's audiences. (I first thought it was a misspelled BBC...) RCA may still be known, but most people of today are likely unaware of the former importance and relevance of said company for the (consumer) electronics business - hence the link to the corresponding wikipedia page.

BBC's VERA was yet another early and failed attempt to create a VTR. Since it isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article, I considered it a helpful addition. 92.72.70.101 (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

My main interest at that page is to make sure that it follows the WP:No original research policy. If the Type C format also has no source, and if it is unverifiable in published sources, then it should be deleted. The Bing Crosby link should be explicit the first time it appears. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

No answer - and it seems you reverted all of my contributions...

Congrats! Unfortunately, these days that seems to be the typical wikipedia experience. Incompentent, arrogant "contributors" that are too lazy to even check wikipedia before they delete additions created by other users. As usual, the likes of you will not believe it - but in this case you have no idea what you're doing. And you certianly don't realise that behavior like yours is discouraging other users.

Since this seems to be the general modus operandi of today's wikipedia, I am pretty convinced that very soon classic encyclopedias will have a comeback...

Thanks for nothing. 92.72.70.101 (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

What's this about "all my contributions"? I reverted your two addtions to the Quadruplex videotape article, but I didn't touch your five other article edits. Binksternet (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• I reverted vandalism and this "Incompentent arrogant contributor" reverted me as well. 2601:41:C202:3230:B405:4E3D:A4F9:C917 (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit revert

(Discussion moved to Talk:Chiang Kai-shek where it belonged in the first place.) Sir, I strongly am against moving this discussion there, I don't think it is appropriate over such a trivial issue. (I literally waited hours for your reply, and I still think it best that this is resolved between ourselves quickly, not to be moved to a talk page where hundreds of people will see it there henceforth). I honestly don't feel anything I wrote was factually wrong. But I will engage with you there, if I must, for now. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Third party opinion

Binksternet, can you please take a look at the Blizzard of Ozz (Ozzy Osbourne) album page talk section. There is a unregistered user citing release dates for Heavy Metal records that are an impossibility. Altough he is citing Loudwire and Ultimate Classic Rock, which are deemed reliable, the dates he provides are the dates the record entered the British Album Charts (Saturdays). This, as you will know, is technically impossible. He keeps insisting that stacking sources will somehow improve his point, and is deaf for reasoning. but what probably happened is that Ozzy's site cited the Chart entry date by mistake, and these music sites copied it from there. Thanks. Ray1983a (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've made a report @ WP:RFPP. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I see that it has been declined..again. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! - FlightTime (open channel) 20:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice

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 abortion. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

While DS alerts should never be taken as a finding of wrongdoing, that is particularly the case here; I'm just giving these to anyone who's made recent reverts at Crisis pregnancy center, as it is now under a 72-hour 1RR. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was warned previously about the abortion topic sanctions, on Nov 1, 2014. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Under the current system, DS alerts expire after one year, although that will hopefully change soon.  Kinehore -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Mosaddegh Cleveland ref

Hey, about this change [3] — I originally removed it because I couldn't find anything in the book covering that sentence. I've looked at Cleveland's A History of the Modern Middle East 4th edition, and I wonder if you're using a different edition. Page 274 is about the Six-Day War; "Muhammad Mosaddiq and the Oil Nationalization Crisis, 1951–1953" starts on page 289. Could you explain that?

The sentence "Throughout his career, Mosaddegh strove to increase the power the people held versus the power of the crown" isn't backed by this chapter, specifically nothing about "the people". Some choice quotes that could be used to somehow reformulate this sentence:

• Many Iranians also directed their discontent at the monarchs, past and present, who had allowed foreign domination to occur in the first place. These sentiments found a spokesman in Muhammad Mosaddiq, whose nationalist beliefs and personal appeal overshadowed the shah and threw Iran into a major international and domestic crisis from 1950 to 1953.
• Mosaddiq earned a reputation as a politician of impeccable honesty and integrity. He also became known for his support of parliamentary democracy and his strong opposition to foreign activities in Iran. In the late 1930s, he was placed under house arrest for his objections to Reza Shah’s authoritarianism
• Mosaddiq’s impassioned campaign against continued foreign interference in Iran and his warnings about the dangers of abandoning democracy for royal dictatorship attracted widespread support
• What brought them together was their common opposition to foreign influence and the expansion of royal authority

I'm going to rewrite it as "strove to increase the power parliament held versus the expansion of the crown's authority".

Peepeepedia (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, that works. Binksternet (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The Quireboys

Just watched (a minute of) the video for "Hey You". That is not good. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Awful music. I have no interest at all in that group. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Socks on album articles

There seems to be a lot of edits reverting socks on albums I've improved to GA, including the 1970s Genesis ones - including Eggdipie3 and Eggdipie5. Do we need to start an ANI thread? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

They are getting blocked by checkuser. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eggdipie3. Binksternet (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but given this has been going on a while, do we need to semi-protect these articles because of persistent sock puppetry? I think WP:RFPP is mainly for isolated articles, not a bunch, while I don't want to protect them myself because I'm, well, WP:INVOLVED having done the major improvements on them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That puts a wrinkle on the problem. You could ask for a swath of protection at ANI. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022

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 Op-ed: Meet some of the project coordinators

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) 15:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, aversions of the tracklists available..

I added the international versions of albums because people overlooked regular versions and only added japan and international deluxe editions of albums. If I add sources besides discogs can I reestablish my edit with updated sources..? Cause there’s other sources available besides discogs. Also target editions are okay to list tracklists, wikipedia moderators are completely fine with them Renamed user 1020300288 (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding tracklists just because they exist is not how we're doing it. The additional tracklists must be discussed in WP:SECONDARY sources. They must be shown to be important to the topic.

Discogs is not the only problem. All the digital sales sites like amazon and apple are just listing a sales item—they are not saying it's important to the topic.

As an example, here is a source discussing three editions of a Taylor Swift album. Such a source would support showing a tracklisting of the editions. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I didn’t know that. I‘m sorry. So, I believe I only added two alternate editions to articles, the international special edition outside of the US of I Wanna Be with You by Mandy Moore and the US deluxe version of Pink’s Greatest Hits. The other articles, I just edited and tried to fix errors, because Mandy Moore’s album Amanda Leigh’s tracklist is very messed up, the Walmart release had 11 tracks with 2 extra downloads but only one is proven, all of the sources online don’t list the exact tracks or weren’t archived. and it weirdly says it has a 16th track. I wanted to research online and see what tracks were there because I collect bonus tracks to add to my favorite albums on my music library, I think you removed my edit though because I included discogs, which I didn’t know was unreliable, and I’m sorry. I don’t really edit that much anymore, since I’m usually busy.

Possible block evasion

Hey there! I've recently seen that you've been reverting edits on H2O (Hall & Oates album) and that the vandal is apparently evading blocks. Could you take a look at the IP 2605:b100:337:11b0:d96e:a01:4580:90e9? I think they might be the same person based on their activities. Thanks, InvadingInvader (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the guy. I will keep an eye out. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m at being targeted in bad faith

Hey Bink, I’m one of the guys who’s cleaning up the Chris Brown articles to make sure their critical reception is represented correctly, and I’ve been at the forefront of targeted attacks from users Instantwatym and Lionel juners, the latter of whom I suspect to be yet another sockpuppet of Morce Library, an editor who used multiple sock puppets to harass me.

Point is, the caught me when I made an idiotic edit on Exclusive (Chris Brown album), where I mistakenly thought the user score for the AllMusic review was 3.5/5 instead of 4/5. They’re using this mistake to paint me as a vandal who’s attempting to make the Chris Brown articles look bad, when that’s not my intention whatsoever. If you could please look into this situation I’d greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Aardwolf68 (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I have seen the tussle over Chris Brown articles between you and Instantwatym, and I think the energy would best be spent fighting sockpuppet disruption instead. You are correct: Lionel juners was blocked as a sockpuppet.[4] I'll keep an eye on the problem. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Question for you:

Would you like to explain why did you reverted my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1117891560&oldid=1114491615&title=California_English

I found out it has been removed and I added it back with a source. But you reverted, saying it is an unreliable source. Plus, there is a chance of that statement lasted longer in this article and other content. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:1471:B48F:1D3F:5EC4 (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

First, you cited the DMV handbook which says nothing about any difference between Southern and Northern California, nor anything about whether HOV lanes are counted. You misinterpreted the source, adding your own beliefs.

Second, you cited Alchetron which can be edited by any of its users. That means it fails WP:USERG and is considered unreliable. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Fight the Power

Hello! I hope all is well! I wanted to reach out about this edit. I do totally understand your revert, so I did add it back, with a citation to YouTube (I know YT is not really a reliable source,) but I did include a "better source needed" tag while I search for a better source. I just wanted to make sure you knew that I added this in good faith, since the show (The King of Queens) is plenty notable and the song certainly is played on that episode. If you do want it to be removed, I won't re-add it, but wanted to at least let you know my thought process when I included it, since there are other shows/movies included already :) I didn't want you to think I was being snarky with my edit summaries or anything, I'd rather work with a fellow editor, rather than against :) Thanks for reading and I hope to see you around! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 18:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The way I approach this issue is that proving something happened, or that something exists, is not enough to list a bit of pop culture. The general guideline is WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

If you want to nail a fact in place, provide a WP:SECONDARY source commenting explicitly on the fact, for instance a reviewer saying that the music selection used in that scene was perfectly appropriate. A secondary source shows that the media paid attention to the fact, and it shows that the fact is more important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Understood, I appreciate you responding! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 22:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the genre warring of anonymous user #47

Hello, Binksternet. If possible, I would like to request your input on this incidents noticeboard thread regarding the genre warring edits of anonymous user 47.149.223.192. I am contacting you because you have posted on the editor's user talk page, giving the third warning against their genre meddling. Thank you. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Done. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

DJ Clue

Hello. I saw you had a problem with my edit about DJ Clue. DJ Clue is an actor because he appeared in the films State Property And State Property 2, so he should be listed as an actor too. WPUNJ (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a summary of published thought. Nobody in the media calls him an actor. He was only in the first State Propery film, and it was a minor role, not star billing. The film flopped—hardly anyone saw it. The film is not mentioned in the biography at all. That is not enough to call him an actor.

You have also been violating WP:NOEXEC and MOS:SMALLFONT by putting exec roles in the producer parameter, and putting small font code into the infobox where it doesn't belong. And you gave the guy another year of career activity but without any supporting evidence. How do you know he started in 1995 versus 1996? Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

See bruh, youre getting in your feelings. Just because it flopped and and he's not star billing doesn't mean he's not an actor. People in D movies are still actors. Also, he was in State Property 2. I should know, I seen both of them and have them on DVD. No one calls Fat Joe an actor but he's still credited as one. No one calls Beanie Sigel an actor but he still was one. Doesn't matter if the media calls him one or not. WPUNJ

There are no published sources calling him an actor. That's the hard no you're seeing from me. Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep changing my edits for I'm Bout It? Its not hurting you in anyway and I added more than what was added. Really? WPUNJ (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

For more than a year you've been editing with the New Jersey IP range Special:Contributions/149.151.32.0/19 and also your registered username. You casually violate WP:MULTIPLE by edit-warring in the same articles alternating between your username and the IPs.

Your edit contained the same problems I was fixing earlier: WP:NOEXEC and MOS:SMALLFONT (which means no small font in the infobox.) Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

John 5 Grandson

Hi There, I totally understand the revert for John 5 (guitarist) pertaining to his grandson. I was hoping the fact that it came direct from John's Instagram it would make sense, but have read about secondary source, so would like advice on that. I do have one article which pertains to Jaxson: https://metalheadzone.com/rob-zombie-guitarist-john-5-met-with-his-grandson-and-played-guitar-for-him/ - however it is referencing an Instagram post John 5 made about meeting him for the first time. Won't make any changes till I have some advice from yourself on this. Thanks in advance. EmmaJL5 14:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Your metalheadzone article is sufficient to satisfy WP:SECONDARY. They are allowed to use any sources including social media. Binksternet (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I appreciate the reply. I will add that info back in with the metalheadzone article link/reference. EmmaJL5 14:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's not name any minor children who are not famous. See WP:BLPNAME which was put in place to protect privacy. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I will just say he has a grandson. Although this is public from John's own Insgtagram, but I won't include the name. Appreciate your help. I'm just trying to bolster the personal life section as it's fragmented. EmmaJL5 14:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

He's back

Hey Bink. This guy appears to be back to his old habit of removing reissue info from the Oingo Boingo album pages. (Most likely because of his feud with the head of the label, if I had to guess.) He's gone through every album page and removed it. This includes reverting info you had previously restored. What do we do about this continual nuisance? —The Keymaster (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only problem is YourFairyKing did not source his information for the forthcoming reissues of Boi-Ngo, Boingo Alive and Dark at the End of the Tunnel, which is something I'd be glad to do. The Keymaster (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

There seems to have been a lengthy discussion about this here last year, and the consensus that was added to the MOS seems to be the exact opposite of Detachio's argument. Essentially, "notable differences in track listings can be summarised in the prose in lieu of additional lists of tracks." Thoughts? The Keymaster (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the discussion of how music articles should not be saddled with excessive tracklistings from releases that are not discussed in the press. That idea of pruning album articles appears to be driving Detachio's activity. You are free to challenge him by proving the significance of something he removed. Binksternet (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet, should I reinstate the information about the reissues and remove the bonus tracks from the track listings, as that seems to be more in line with the MOS? Also, if so, is it necessary that I explain that to him on his talk page (he has traditionally ignored attempts at discussion there), or should I just explain in the edit history? The Keymaster (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about the content. You can use the edit summary to communicate your changes, and you may also create a new discussion at the article talk page, and refer to it afterward in your edit summary. Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

My inclination is to just restore the info and remove the bonus tracks from the track listing, which seems to be what the MOS suggests. But since this is teetering on the verge of becoming an edit war, I've posted about this in a few other places, hoping to get a consensus first. By the way, I think it's interesting that he removed the reissue info from every Boingo album a week before the label's new reissues went up for pre-order. The Keymaster (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

See edit history here for an example of where he reverted your restored info. The Keymaster (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I see you restored the info on the Only a Lad page. Shall I do the same for Nothing to Fear, Good for Your Soul and Dead Man's Party? I'm still trying to get a consensus regarding the notability of this info from WT:ALBUM, but I'm not getting many responses. The Keymaster (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I would lean to inclusion on those. Your call. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It is done! Should I bother trying to explain to him that there's nothing in the MOS that backs up what he was doing? I doubt it will do much good, and I also don't want to overshadow your warning to him. Thanks again for your help. The Keymaster (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at MJ the Musical, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Alessiorom13 (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. You changed the stats without a supporting cite. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The source that was already cited updates every week. Maybe you should check the source before making rash edits next time. Alessiorom13 (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you (Passion of the Christ article)

I got confused looking a diff - ending up reverting to something I did not intend to. I noticed my mistake but got busy and didn't have a chance to get back to it till now, but you already fixed it. Thanks. Andrew Englehart (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Glad to hear we aren't working at odds. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Voivod edit war

I would like you to report the user edit warring on the Voivod page. For some reason my keyboard has some important keys that are not working like the enter key for instance. Thank you for this. FireCrystal 03:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Spilled coffee? Hmmm. I'll look at Voivod and see what's up. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The edit warrior is back with new ip edits. FireCrystal 05:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The IP added new text backed by a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Uhh, is the guy in that source an official? If so then there's no problem. See [considered a reliable source] for details on ultimate guitar sources. If the guy is an official then disregard it. FireCrystal 05:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm being harassed by an IP

"USA Today didn't have a score" nah bruh. It did have a score and it's clearly written in the article. You opted to remove it and use Slant Magazine just because it's a much more negative review instead, because (as User: Instantwatym and many others said) you're WP: Cherrypicking--158.148.84.253 (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

And what about you acknowledging you made "an idiotic edit on Exclusive" lowering its rating scores and removing reviews for no fuckn reason, then never fixing your mistake. You are a bag of clowns packed all in one person and you should be ashamed of yourself. People like you are the ruin of this encyclopedia--158.148.84.253 (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This is what was said to me by an IP who is more than likely another sock puppet of a Chris Brown fan. Just thought I'd put this here to let it be known that somebody is probably going to target me in a malicious manner again. Aardwolf68 (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

That IP is definitely our Italian friend who goes ballistic when accurate criticism is leveled at Chris Brown. Binksternet (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso. Binksternet (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Hi. Would you make a request for deletion of Taylor Swift (label) (which was created by blocked user Notsammyray) and S. Carter Records (probably original research without reference). 113.210.99.170 (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the harm of that redirect existing. Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022

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 on the 1991 Gulf War air campaign Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

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) 10:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, an apology, and a question

Hi, and I've come to apology for some of my insensitive and abrupt language to you during founder's discussions, esp. around the Thomas Lynch Jr. question (I should have just been civil and linked references to the founding status of Declaration signers). My not-very-Wikipedian excuse for being uncivil is that I was in the midst of a several month disagreement discussion with Allreet, occurring over many pages and through many days and nights (so would also like to further apologize to Allreet here for language unbecoming a Wikipedian, but we did have some fun, no?). What I do know is that these last 10 months (can you believe it's only been 10 months) have seen a tremendous growth in accuracy, proficiency, and some other cy's of Wikipedia's collection of American revolution and founding articles. Coming ahead of the 250th anniversary commemorations and celebrations (probably starting in earnest with the Boston Tea Party's 250th, December 2023) the intense focus brought to this collection was likely well worth whatever we as a group have gone through. This of course includes Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian, extraordinary editors all, and since I've called this meeting here, a question. I've recently come across a brief mention of the Westmoreland Resolves, which occurred near the time of the Stamp Act and Stamp Congress. This Resolve, which has no article, may have some important presence and significance to the timeline and events, does anyone know more about what may or may not be an important topic for the collection? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You calling a meeting on my front porch? LOL. Aside from the not-very-important person of Lynch Jr, the notion that Westmoreland Resolves could be an article is a fine idea. Paul C. Nagel calls the paper out as important. Thomas Triplett Russell and ‎John Kenneth Gott agree, adding that the correct name is the Leedstown Resolutions. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Just evolved. Wanted to come apologize to you, then pinged Allreet, then yada yada yada, Paul C. Nagel. Thanks for the alternate name. I'm interested in learning about the Resolves or Resolutions (depending on which side the bread is buttered) and seeing if they tie-in in any way to the great 1770s resolves (my latest favorite is the Halifax Resolves). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the Leedstown Resolutions seems a pretty important action and document. Nice when another piece of the overall structure, a piece I've never heard of or knew about, comes around. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, not another one

Sorry to bother you with more garbage. A user keeps adding unsourced content to Mummer, a page I have been working feverishly on for months. In one instance, he even added a quote in the middle of my sourced paragraph that's not part of that reference. In another, he added his own analysis to a quotation that I've never even been able to find a proper source for and had previously flagged. I have politely told him not to do this three times on his talk page, to no avail. Please help. —The Keymaster (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, you will see I'm not the first person who has explained this to him on his talk page. The Keymaster (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

User vandalism

I'm writing about a user who goes by Squared.Circle.Boxing and they're being rude and inappropriate about some of the wikipedia pages. You can check on their user page. Though you should know. 173.56.58.183 (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. It's just a content dispute, and frankly I'm in favor of the trim job. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Page history of many articles including Samuel Nixon (artist) and Sam Nixon

These pages have a serious knock-on effect on the IP addresses you claimed that they are operated by a blocked user. I definitely think using the /40 at the end of the range block is better even though I don't have good knowledge as to how many IP addresses are in the ranges of the IPv6 version. Anyway I checked my contributions and discovered I had the "Reverted" tag next to them and spotted more disruption. Whoever this Dealer07 person is, they have not learned their lesson about edit warring, that's for certain. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

And they've caused more disruption while we did not make any contributions since the opening message. I had more "Reverted" tags next to the edit summaries of the pages affected once more so I knew there was something wrong. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hakenkreuz and Swastika

It is important to understand that the Swastika and Hakenkreuz are two distinct symbols. It should be noted that the symbol that Nazi flags used was referred to as "hooked cross" or "Hakenkreuz" (in German) by Hitler and NOT "Swastika", which is a symbol of auspiciousness from the east. So, when you refer to it as a swastika, you are mistaken. Riverbend21 (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You are flat wrong. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

For your perusal:

1. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20210816-the-ancient-symbol-that-was-hijacked-by-evil
2. https://cohna.org/swastika-is-not-hakenkreuz/

This should clear up any misunderstandings you might have. Riverbend21 (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

None of this is a surprise to me, or in any way a reason to change the English loan word "swastika" to the German language word hakenkreuz. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You have zero chance of making such a change stick in any Wikipedia article. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Correct, zero chance. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC invitation for Male expendability article

I started an RfC on Male expendability. Let's invite the community to help us settle this. Here's the link: [5] Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AFProsperity.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AFProsperity.png. 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. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 15:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop removing Metal & Bass

We have pioneered this genre for over two decades. It is a niche that continues to grow and we depend on its growth. You're diminishing our work by removing it. It is not poorly referenced. You can ask artists themselves about the genres they do. 2A0A:A546:F11D:1:B81D:BE4B:1E5B:DC24 (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Wikipedia exists to represent the published literature. If there's no published literature to cite, then we don't need the information on Wikipedia. The encyclopedia definitely does NOT exist to fill the gaps in the published record. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

1988 Mukhopadhyay and Higgins paper, but which one?

I have a question about the Carol Mukhopadhyay and Patricia J. Higgins paper you cited over at Male expendability. I find myself very curious about it. I found "Anthropological Studies of Women's Status Revisited: 1977-1987" and I didn't see the quote you listed, "Because fewer of them are needed to produce and maintain offspring, from a population maintenance perspective, males are more expendable than females," in there. However, while I was looking for that full text version, I did find a bunch of other articles that attributed that very quote to "Higgens (1988)." For example this one.

The way I see it, there are a couple of things that could be going on. 1) The simplest answer is that the quote's there and I just missed it. The paper is pretty dense, 35 pages long, and not searchable. If so, simple solution: Please tell me which page the quote is on. 2) You didn't read "Anthropological Studies of Women's Status Revisited: 1977-1987"; you read something else. You either read the articles like the ones I saw quoting it or you read a post from a Wikieditor claiming the quote was there and you assumed they were correct but you didn't check for yourself. That's not against the rules so long as you follow WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. 3) Higgens wrote more than one paper in 1988 and you accidentally cited the wrong one.

So can you tell me what page the quote is on? If we're going to keep the male expendability article on Wikipedia, we're going to need sources that say what they're purported to say. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I cited the paper by Mukhopadhyay and Higgins, which I read online through my Wikipedia Library access to Jstor. Mukhopadhyay and Higgins analyze the then-current status of anthropology literature with regard to gender roles in human society. At the top of page 473, the authors are busy discussing a viewpoint published by anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday about the "male monopoly over a variety of violent activities—the relative expendability argument. Because fewer of them are needed to produce and maintain offspring, from a population maintenance perspective, males are more expendable than females." Mukhopadhyay and Higgins continue by noting that Sanday "assumes that motherhood automatically produces a complex of nurturant, nonviolent behaviors". Mukhopadhyay and Higgins conclude by saying that more research is needed on this point. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!! I figured it might be something like that. Hm. It looks like they're attributing male expendability to Friedl. In other words, it's not Mukhopadhyah and Higgins who believe that males are expendable; it's Friedl and possibly Sanday who think so. So, per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, it would be okay for the article to read, "According to Drs. Mukopadhyah and Higgins, the "relative expendability argument" was first written down by Dr. Firstname Friedl in 1975." However, I note that they don't say whether Friedl was talking about humans or other animals. We should probably track down Friedl's paper. Let's continue this on the talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

That would be Ernestine Friedl's 1975 book Women and Men. An Anthropologsts View.[6] David Gilmore cited and largely agreed with Friedl in his 1990 book Manhood in the Making. Cultural Concepts of Masculinity.[7] Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It would help a lot if we could show everyone online, non-paywalled sources. Because both the Daniels book and Mukhopadhyay and Higgins article turned out to not directly support the information they were cited to support, it makes sense that people will want to see for themselves that these other sources say what they say. I can check Google Books when I have time, but we'll need at least one that people can just click on and see, no two weeks of waiting for the library request to come through. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Selena Gomez

Hello, Mr.knowles. You have removed additional production credits on Selena Gomez’s Revival album. Track 11 “Rise” should include Nelson Davis for additional production/programming credit.

Please correct the error immediately. If you any questions I am happy to clarify and confirm. 2601:40B:8500:EE90:194C:5BDE:3D3C:6EE6 (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I stand behind my removal. Nelson Davis is not credited on the album. If you have other published proof, you should cite it. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

F.A.M.E. (Chris Brown album)

Hi, i've seen you revert socks on this page before https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F.A.M.E._(Chris_Brown_album)&action=history there's been another newly registered user User:Dee Cosey making controversial changes on this page again and i'm pretty sure its another sock. could you maybe take a look? --FMSky (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks suspicious. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

NIN singular/plural

Would you like to contribute to the discussion that I have started on the article talk page? It's probably the more productive way to proceed at this stage. Miraculously majestic master of mayhem (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022

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 British Territorials in India Interview: On turning 200 (issues of the Bugle!) Review essay: Coordinators' 2022 reading list Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

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) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

X (Chris Brown album)

Hey, I noticed you made an edit saying that "we are not using sockpuppets wording". I would just like to clarify that the wording used was actually by me and not by any of the numerous sockpuppets. The "flown" review I believe was meant to be "glowing" or something along those lines, as the Sputnik review was positive, although I apologize for the mistake and confusion. If applicable, I think my wording represents the overall reception better as opposed to just a scramble of reviews, and should be reverted back. If not, it's cool, and I totally understand. Again, thanks for your help. Aardwolf68 (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Wife acceptance factor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wife acceptance factor, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife acceptance factor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Your reverts on Differential signalling

Hi there. I have some context for you. In this article when we refer to signals as having a magnitude and a polarity, we’re essentially describing a vector. With magnitude being the length of the vector and polarity being the direction. Importantly, a vector cannot have a negative magnitude. That’s why it is important to specify polarity in this case. If you read the lead of the article, the exact same terminology is used to describe the differential mode signals used in differential signaling (i.e. signals equal in magnitude but of opposite polarity).

As I tried to describe in the edit log, when you have a common-mode and a differential-mode signal of equal magnitude (i.e. amplitude), what separates them is their polarity.

I hope this clarified the situation. Gutten på Hemsen (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Sending You a Little Christmas

An unregistered user has been reverted by other editors a few times but is insistent on the changes intended on Sending You a Little Christmas. It looks like they've been reverted on other pages as well. What's the next course of action? Danaphile (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I sent it to WP:AIV because the IP activity represents block evasion by Special:Contributions/2600:4040:12C5:4F00:0:0:0:0/64. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Season's Greetings from Iggy the Swan

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Repeat offender

Sorry to bother you with this, but this guy continues to add unsourced information, despite repeated warnings from me, you and several others on his talk page. If there is a more preferable way I can deal with people like this in the future, rather than alerting you to their behavior, please let me know. Happy holidays to you.—The Keymaster (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Deleting text sections

Hello

I don't understand why you keep on deleting the sections about the skits on the pages to Busta Rhymes' songs "It's a Party" and "Do My Thing". These skits are actually part of the tracks and therefore have a duty to be mentioned.

With best regards Thegalacticalbeast (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The skit is not that important, not proved to be part of the song. It might even be the next track, in which case it is off topic. You keep adding your own conjecture about it, violating WP:NOR. Your conjecture is this part: "The skit was omitted from the digital version used on streaming platforms, for unknown reasons".

You are also genre-warring by inserting unsupported genres such as boom bap and East Coast rap.

Don't list executive producers. See WP:NOEXEC. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is the proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no1N1DLKZmk&t=2353s Busta Rhymes himself says it's the skit AFTER "It's a Party". And even if this interview didn't exist, having the physical version of the album is proof enough. And may I ask why it isn't important? If it's part of the song then it should be mentioned.

"The skit was omitted from the digital version used on streaming platforms, for unknown reasons" is not my own conjecture. Listen to the music video version, the version on Spotify, YouTube Music or any other streaming services and you will not hear the skit. Thegalacticalbeast (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Busta Rhymes says that the skit comes after the song. That makes it unimportant to the song article. It's only important to the album article if WP:SECONDARY sources discuss it. You keep adding your own conjecture: "for unknown reasons". That's another violation of WP:NOR. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edits on the Flava in Ya Ear song page? I thought "<small>...</small>" should not be included in an infobox... talk) 16:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)