User talk:Binksternet/Archive50

One Hit Wonders

I was removing all the non one hit wonders from the list because I have done research over the years and was giving the list a more accurate one hit wonders list. Songs like Obsession and Our House were not One Hit Wonders even though sometimes Our House gets thought of as a One Hit Wonder. Sites like YouTube have people that do listings of songs that were one hit wonders and some of the songs they pick are not One Hit Wonders. Wikipedia could be responsible for this and putting non one hit wonders on the list is going to cause people to put videos of songs that are not One Hit Wonders on a One Hit Wonders video. It's like calling Bohemian Rhapsody a One Hit Wonder and not doing research on the band that made it. Wikipedia needs an accurate list and not a list of songs that were thought of as One Hit Wonders before research was done.104.229.83.51 (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources. Wikipedia is intended to be a summary of published knowledge, not a place for bringing your personal (unpublished) research. Please read the policy about WP:No original research.

The article about one-hit wonders of the US has serveral inclusion criteria discussions on the talk page: Talk:List of one-hit wonders in the United States. The consensus of the involved editors is to list all the one-hit wonders that have been named by two or more reliable sources reporting on music in the US. Your changes have been reverted because you are not conforming to this criteria. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking there should be a listing of what people think are One Hit Wonders, but are really not. So that way the ones that are One Hit Wonders are on the correct listing and separate from the ones that people think are One Hit Wonders and are not. Otherwise, the songs that are not One Hit Wonders are going to be believed by people as One Hit Wonders without doing research. The reason why it was wrong for you to revert the page was because I have done my research when it comes to One Hit Wonders. VH1 didn't always do their research when it came to One Hit Wonders. I spotted some songs that weren't One Hit Wonders on some VH1 lists.

Here is a list of all the Non One Hit Wonders from the 80s that you decided to keep as One Hit Wonders (You should check these songs out for yourself): A-Ha's Take On Me, Madness's Our House, A Flock of Seagulls's A Ran (So Far Away), Chris DeBurgh's The Lady in Red, Dead or Alice's You Spin Me Round (Like a Record), Animotion's Obsession, Martika's Toy Soldiers, Rockwell's Somebody's Watching Me, Matthew Wilder's Break My Stride, Swing Out Sister's Breakout, and Tommy Tutone's 867-5309/Jenny (I didn't know this wasn't a One Hit Wonder until I did research). Definition of One Hit Wonder: One Top 40 Hit (Billboard Top 100)!

The person that originally made that list did NOT do enough research. I was correcting that person's mistakes. That is all I have to say. If you want to, you can check all of the songs to make sure they are One Hit Wonders. I am not going to change the list. I am just being nice and making things accurate when it comes to music. I am going to leave the list alone and you can find out if my changes originally were the right changes by doing research. Sorry that I didn't convince you that I was right about making certain changes. 104.229.83.51 (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

And I'm sorry I did not get through to you that you cannot share your research on Wikipedia. Don't even try – it's not negotiable. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I gave up. I guess the non One Hit Wonders are going to be thought of forever as One Hit Wonders because we can't have the non One Hit Wonders on a different list (something like "Songs Listed by Publications as One Hit Wonders, But Are Not"). That is what I think would improve the page. That is what I was talking about on your talk page. I guess that won't happen. Honestly, I think the page is a mess and not neutral. I think the page needs to be improved. However, you think my edits were wrong and the page is neutral without my edits. I disagree! I think Wikipedia should be accurate, even without publications. Wikipedia shouldn't always rely on publications for facts, because some of those publications are wrong. However, I am not going to keep complaining about the list. I just think that the page needs to be improved. That is my opinion! 104.229.83.51 (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

BTW, My research is not from original research. My research is thru publications by Billboard. Billboard even has a website that can check all artists and their chart history. These are Publications, am I right? 104.229.83.51 (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you can start a new list of purely Billboard-based entries. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Queen

Are you a fan of Queen? I saw some Queen posts on your page. Stco23 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I enjoy many of their songs, but I would not say I am "fanatic" about the band. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

We have a problem with an IP on the Bohemian Rhapsody film page. Just to let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodericksilly (talk • contribs)

Yes, I have seen that. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Could I ask you a little help?

Hi Michael, I'm KIODOS from Germany. I started a few days ago to create an article by an Italian artist, Matthew S (Winner of MTV new generation in Italy). I created the article and seeing your experience and your many articles(They are created very well, congratulations) I wondered if you could see it and tell me if there are changes to be made. I hope you can help me! Congratulations again for your user profile and for your articles!

All the best, Kiodos

I will take a look soon. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much Binksternet! I appreciate it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiodos (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet ! did you check my article? All the best, --Kiodos (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been very busy working... hardly any time to breathe the last few days. I have not forgotten! Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the trouble! I hope I'm not disturbing! Thanks again for your time! All the best, --Kiodos (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Kiodos, my first impression of your Draft:Matthew S is that it needs maybe one more third party news source to be accepted as a mainspace article. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

In the talk section some users have added other links, can they be fine? I've seen a lot of artists with a lot less articles ... --Kiodos (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, I just checked the whole article, I adjusted the links and added sources to the article and other important events. Now can it be okay? If there are other changes to do let me know. Thank you so much! --Kiodos (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

You marked my ACCURATE edits to the doobie brothers' page as vandalism??

Do you even know what you're talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:900A:1104:3200:D02:517F:645B:FA15 (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Below are some examples from your editing history.

• You removed some players and added some instruments without citing a source. Then when this was reverted, you decided that one of the players you had previously removed was now also a keyboard player.[1] All without a reference to support the changes.
• Move Patrick Simmons to the top, as if he is the first person in the band, which is not true.
• Remove Walter Parazaider even though he is considered part of the band.
• Remove Parazaider again.
• Simmons on top again.
• Simmons on top again. Edit warring notice, using multiple IPs. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your assistance, please?

Hi, Bink - I was hoping you could get me on the trail to finding RS so I can create an article for Bruce Babcock. I doubt this article will cut the mustard, and I doubt IMDb will either. He's got 2 Emmy's to his credit and 8 noms, so he passes WP:GNG but I was hoping for some RS that weren't so "industry". Ping when you respond, please? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

How about BMI and CSU Northridge Magazine? I found other websites that were self-published, and plenty of mentions in passing where the larger topic is Emmy noms or wins. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I think those two plus the few I've found should be sufficient. Thank you for the prompt reply!! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018

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: Peacemaker67 looks at the Sydney Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

IPs are human too

I have spent time and effort trying to accurately correct mistakes in various articles. It is disheartening for you to revert my edits for no reason, other than you believe it is vandalism because I am not a registered user. Have you read the guidance here: Wikipedia:IPs_are_human_too? I do not choose my IP address and if I am using multiple IP addresses, that is not intentional and certainly not an attempt to avoid detection. My edits are not vandalism and it is offensive that you are threatening to block me. I do not wish to enter into an edit war, but I am reverting back to my edits because they are accurate and correct. For example, the very first reference on Born to Try states that the release date was Monday 11 November 2002, therefore my edit reflected that. I do not currently have the time to show you all the evidence of why my edits were correct, but I will gladly do so if you request this. 86.166.170.144 (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Polish history

Forgive me if I am doing this wrong, I have never edited a Wiki in my life. Don't want to. I was searching for Polish history and the page I landed on said I had messages. They said I shouldn't go around editing "the way I did". While I like Queen, I wouldn't be editing anything about them on a Wiki about Polish history. Or any Wiki. Or any page. Same for Disney. The only thing I can figure out, sometimes the ip that is displayed is not the number for the IPv4 Address. I checked both and they do not match. Feel free to remove this, like I said I don't think I was put on this earth to edit Wikipedias  :) Tolkien 64 (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know which specific article or IP address you are talking about. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Binksternet. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Bebe Rexha —> Macedonian Albanians

Her parents are Albanians from Macedonia, which is not the same as normal Albanians. Her parents were both born in Macedonia and came then to the USA. Србија24 (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You are mixing up decades and geo-political boundaries. Her dad was born in Debar when it was in Yugoslavia. Her mom was born in the United States.

If you want to call her Macedionian, you must find some WP:Reliable sources to support that claim. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Persistent sockpuppetry

Can you revert the edits in Birds in the Trap Sing McKnight, Kiss Land and Passion, Pain & Demon Slayin', there is an editor who keep reverting my edits by using multiple IP addresses. There also an discussion at WP:ANI, reporting this editor. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can do. Binksternet (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rockallnight5. See you there. Binksternet (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Binksternet. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Connormah (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Captions

What's with Nightscream? Are they picking/continuing some kind of fight with you? Drmies (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything like that. Me and Nightscream don't interact much, but I respect his work. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I see it now. Nightscream and I have a difference of opinion regarding image captions at the top of biography articles. I'm sure we can work it out. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Request for comment: Infobox captions with not-very-relevant place identified. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey!

I noticed you removed that few things I've added to List of best-selling singles, and you said I could add them back if I had a reliable source. What actually counts as a reliable source, if you don't me asking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.43.105.193 (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Check out WP:Reliable sources, and for music articles, WP:ALBUMAVOID. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Ceintures de Lyon DYK Review, and a Barnstar!

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For your helpful and thorough review of, and contributions to, my DYK nomination for Ceintures de Lyon. Ry's the Guy (talk|contribs) 09:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet,

I just wanted to thank you for all of the work you did improving the article I translated on the Ceintures de Lyon. I've been busy lately and unable to address the points you brought up in your DYK review. I finally got some time today, and imagine my surprise when I logged in to see that you've not only addressed the citation issue, you've also greatly improved my often awkward translating and article layout. You went over and above, and it's really appreciated. This Barnstar is the least I could do to repay you. Thanks again! Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! And thank you for bringing more information to the encyclopedia, by tranlsating French articles into English. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Claim about non-neutral text on the Big Sha page

Please cite the text you claim is non-neutral. We are talking history here. And what do you consider an "unsupported" associated act? You need to use the talk page! Hkrware (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Two things going on here.

The first issue is non-neutral changes, removing negative and adding promotional text in the article body. This large addition of yours brought puffery and promotion to the article: "respectfully known as 'The Father of BG rap'" (unreferenced), "one of the most successful musicians of all time in the region" (unreferenced), "a full-fledged national hero" (unreferenced), "single-handedly kick-starts the hip-hop scene in Bulgaria" (unreferenced), "sadly becoming the most pirated music record" (unreferenced), and more. Your changes also removed all of the well-cited negative information, making the article terribly biased.

The second issue is too many artists added to "associated acts". The guideline for associated acts can be read at Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts... it says that listed artists must be very closely interconnected, with multiple collaborations. You even admit here that two of the artists you added were not close collaborators. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

A Question

Can i ask you what was the reason to delete all my statements on the talk page of Keditz? Its really amazing to know that even talking with fellow editors is disruptive these days. Please just don't do revert edits on others talk page. Regards47.8.217.243 (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It's my belief that you are evading the block on Special:Contributions/Chandra Shekher Mishra. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Grabel listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thomas Grabel. Since you had some involvement with the Thomas Grabel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Quick inquiry

Hi Bink. I noticed you have been striking/removing comments from an IP on Talk:Stéphane Grappelli under the rationale that they are a blocked user (specifically User:Badmintonhist) evading their sanction. Can I ask why you are so certain about this and if you have established this fact somewhere? As I'm sure you know as an old hand here, it's generally not permitted to modify or remove comments in this fashion unless the bad faith behaviour has been established through a community process--one editor's suspicions are not typically considered sufficient to authorize unilateral action. If you've taken this to SPI, ANI, or another administrative space, could you leave a link on the talk page so everyone there knows the basis of the sockpuppet concerns and can be on the lookout for further such disruption? If you haven't yet pursued that course of action, it really should come before you start removing or striking comments; somebody having an IP that geolocates to the same state as a blocked editor is not really a strong enough redflag in itself to justify unilateral removals in place of the usual SPI process. If I've missed something, I apologize; I was only able to garner so much detail about your concerns from your edit summaries on the talk page during the back and forth between you and the IP to restore/remove the comments. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I filed a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Badmintonhist some 15 minutes after Roscelese also filed, so the link here is the two reports joined together.

At WP:EVADE, the text says "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." That's what is my basis for removing the IPs latest comments and striking the ones that have seen replies by others. The guideline does not say anything about waiting for a particular community process. The thing that angers me is that somebody can waltz in, create a new problem for their old nemesis, spend some time firing up some arguments against them, all before the community processes catch up to them with a block. The EVADE guideline gives me a chance to plug the hole. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Hopefully a CU will be authorized on the matter. As to the rest: respectfully, I'd say you are begging the question a little there, by way of a non-sequitur; the question is not whether it is appropriate to revert a block evading account. Rather, the open issue is whether or not you have established that this editor is the block evader that you think they are. The fact that WP:EVADE doesn't spell out the full community process for reporting and confirming a sockpuppet is not surprising since that is not the focus of that policy. Regardless the absence of those details from that subsection certainly doesn't obviate us from the responsibility of first establishing that someone is who we suspect them to be before we go about removing their talk page contributions. The project couldn't operate if we allowed that standard, as people would game it by making spurious accusations and using that as an excuse to censor one-another. Further, edit warring with the user to repeatedly remove/reintroduce their comments (because they are not yet blocked and can easily do so) is likely to be viewed as disruptive, on both ends.

I don't know the history about the sockmaster here, but I fully assume you are operating in good faith and with sufficient cause--so, as another (Summoned by bot) respondent passing through the discussion, I have absolutely zero inclination to condemn or push back against how you are approaching this, beyond the small amount of time I am taking for these two quick messages. But that said, if you want my advice, contributor to contributor, next time I would wait for the results of the SPI before striking/removing comments. Otherwise someone with an axe to grind over the matter is likely to try to drag it to ANI, and that's not a headache that's worth the pay-off. I can appreciate that its frustrating to wait on SPI at the pace it moves of late--believe me, I do!--but there's a reason we have the process we have. Aside from having checks to make sure the evidence for socking is compelling, it is also a lot easier to remove/mark the disruptive contributions when the user is blocked and can't just edit war to keep re-intruding them. Just my take, unsolicited though it may be. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your concern. As far as gaming the system, I would be more worried about a blocked person angrily disrupting with IPs and socks. The established user with a reputation to uphold would be less likely to disrupt in that manner. Binksternet (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the commentary in the spirit it was intended. FYI, I saw (via the link at SPI) that little bit of trolling on their part here, once they realized the game was up: what a piece of work that nitwit is. No wonder their M.O. stuck in your memory with such detail--I'd remember a troll like that too. Now that the matter is resolved (for the time being, anyway) and I've seen this particular LTA in action, I'm grateful for your vigilance in noticing and responding to them. And I have simultaneous sympathy for Roscelese if she's had to deal with that user habitually. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Rodneygunn

Hi Binksternet, this user is definitely the sockpuppet of a long-standing Janet editor who was indeff'd for keeping on edit warring. I'm failing to recall the master, would you by any chance remember? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

A lot of fans have come to the page to change the sales figure to 160 million, even some who are still editing, such as Justifylips. But the ones that got indef blocked were Encoreameya who started with this edit in June 2016, then was finally blocked in March 2017. In May 2017 Rahulsurvewiki got blocked as a sock. At the same time, BojanJJ was indeffed for the same stuff, but as a different person, unrelated to Encoreameya. A few months later, Jordantr7 got blocked as a sock of BojanJJ.

FYI, Rodneygunn is not a recent account. The first edit was in 2015 changing Janet sales figures to 150 million. None of the above sockpuppet cases came up with Rodneygunn during checkuser. Binksternet (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for refreshing my memory, yes I was definitely thinking about BojanJJ, but now I can see that Rodneygunn is not related, just another fan changing the sales. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 18:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Robert P. Murphy edits

The reason for my edits were in the interest of neutrality. The sections I deleted did not seem to match the type of content seen on most other pages of this type. The section titled "Erroneous inflation predictions" is the largest section of the page, never have I seen a biography page where the largest section is a singling out/criticism of a single point, perhaps the issue is not so much in the existence of this section but in the lack of additional content. I will attempt constructive additions instead.

The section on evolution however is very misleading, the section states: "asserting that he "can literally prove evolution is false" ". If you look at the source for this you will see the quote is taken out of context, as Murphy only stated he could prove evolution is false under the framework argued by the person he is debating. This is him (correct or not) pointing out a logical flaw in an adversary's argument, very different from claiming to be able to prove evolution is false outright, which is how the section currently reads. Seeing as this is the central item in that section, I still believe this section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:82F0:7980:95DB:BFD7:21A7:EC1C (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Rather than removing all the stuff you don't like, why don't you give it a slight trim, retaining the core criticisms? Outright removal isn't neutral. And you can expand the article with other information, to make the criticisms relatively smaller. But don't whitewash the biography. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for Battle of Tassafaronga! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

 Like Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Gilley

On 2 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Paul Gilley, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that songwriter Paul Gilley gave a neighbor the lyrics to the 1950 Hank Williams song "They'll Never Take Her Love from Me" before it was heard on the radio, as proof that he had written it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Gilley. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Paul Gilley), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject World War I Op-Ed Series

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 14:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The onslaught

Will it ever end ? - FlightTime (open channel) 20:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Godwin's Law in action. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Stereolab

why not include the news about the reissues? don't see why a second source is needed if the news comes directly from the band themselves. if not putting a regrouping date year, the news about the reissues and primavera show should be added in regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidanwinters (talk • contribs) 21:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

A secondary source shows that the information is significant to the topic. That works for both the reissue project and the Primavera show in Spain.

You can cite Spin[2] or Pitchfork.[3]

One of the problems I had with your addition is that you used the wording "extensive reissue campaign" which is copied without attribution directly from the band's announcement (see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.) Another problem is that you saw fit to convey the band's teaser message, "Keep ‘em peeled for news of the live return of Stereolab", which was far too promotional and completely empty of detail. It's much better in cases like that to wait until there's enough information to tell our readers about a scheduled date and place. Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Tiny Mix Tapes

Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding Tiny Mix Tapes should be count as an reliable source or not. If you want to. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018

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: Indy beetle looks at military newspapers in East Africa

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) 10:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Chicago_(band) Page - Persistant Sockpuppetry and Nonconstuctive Edits

Hello Binksternet,

There seems to be an editor or group of editors who persist on making unsourced changes without explanation to the Chicago (Band) page. These mainly involve poorly worded sentences, adding genres to the band, or editing the timeline and membership with inaccurate information that is not corroborated. I find I'm frequently reverting the same edits over and over and providing a reason why, but the other party does not discuss any of the changes, they simply re-do them under a new IP address without comment. Is there anything that can be done administratively to monitor the page and help prevent this from continuing to occur? Regards209.212.21.197 (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We can get the article protected, or we can block one or more IPs. The first method will knock out your ability to edit. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I do not think blocking IPs will be effective since the party or parties seem to continually change them before each new edit. Protecting the article, even if just temporarily, might work as a deterrent. I know I will lose the ability to edit, but I do not mind that as it seems like I am just repeatedly reverting the same edits multiple times a week here anyway. It is up to you, please implement whatever you think is the best solution to help deal with the issue. Thanks for your time. 209.212.21.197 (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet,

It appears that the persistent unsourced editing of the Chicago (Band) page is continuing by user JARCILLA. Rather than reverting the edits myself and risk being accused of engaging in an edit war, I thought it was best to give you the heads up. The changes in question were made on December 22, 2018 and involve the identical non-constructive edits that have repeatedly been reverted by yourself and others numerous times on that page. Regards, 209.212.21.197 (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chicago band genre warrior from Lakewood. Feel free to go there and express your thoughts. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a notice on this incident. It appears that the situation has been handled. The user in question was exhibiting the same behavior on numerous other pages and has been blocked from editing. The Chicago page is also being protected to prevent that party from editing under a different IP address. Thanks for your role in getting this resolved. Regards, 209.212.21.197 (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet. I wanted to alert you that the "Chicago band genre warrior from Lakewood" from the user JARCILLA appears to be continuing under the new IP address (112.201.92.7). The party in question cannot edit the Chicago page due to protection, but has gone back and remade many of the exact same edits that user JARCILLA or one of his alias IP addresses did back in December 2018. The following pages were edited with the same exact edits by user 112.201.92.7 that user JARCILLA made:

1)New Edit: 11:40, 18 January 2019 diff hist +14‎ Matt Heafy ‎ Original edit: 17:18, 24 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎. 2)New Edit: 11:40, 18 January 2019 diff hist +5‎ Corey Beaulieu Original edit: 17:17, 24 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎. 3)New Edit: 11:42, 18 January 2019 diff hist +60‎ Raising Hell (Bullet for My Valentine song) ‎Original edit: 06:49, 14 December 2018‎ 76.171.112.116 (talk)‎ (used another IP address [76.171.112.116] instead of a User name but with the same edit). 4)New Edit: 11:44, 18 January 2019 diff hist +131‎ No Way Out (Bullet for My Valentine song) Original edits: 07:28, 7 December 2018‎ 76.171.112.116 (talk)‎ and 07:29, 7 December 2018‎ 76.171.112.116 (talk)‎ . . (1,820 bytes) +2‎ (used another IP address [76.171.112.116] instead of a User name but with the same edit). 5)New Edit: 11:45, 18 January 2019 diff hist +165‎ Word Up! (song) ‎ →‎Korn Original edit: 06:28, 21 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,261 bytes) +179‎ 6)New Edit: 11:46, 18 January 2019 diff hist +62‎ Here in My Heart (Chicago song) Original edit: 00:13, 23 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,738 bytes) +62‎. 7)New Edit: 11:57, 18 January 2019 diff hist +137‎ Sulfur (song) ‎ Original edit: 23:05, 20 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,220 bytes) +140‎ 8) New Edit: 11:59, 18 January 2019 diff hist +49‎ Projekt Revolution ‎ →‎2004 Original edit: 06:34, 15 December 2018‎ 2606:6000:6602:ad00:e4f8:7a64:d51d:3b33 (talk)‎ . . (34,874 bytes) +55‎.(used another IP address [2606:6000:6602:ad00:e4f8:7a64:d51d:3b33] instead of a User name but with the same edit as before). 9) New Edit: 12:05, 18 January 2019 diff hist +204‎ Earth, Wind & Fire ‎ →‎1994–present: Neo-classic period current Original edit on the Chicago (Band) page: 04:15, 15 October 2018‎ 76.171.112.116 (talk)‎ . . (136,755 bytes) +61‎. It seems since he cannot add this to the Chicago (Band) page, he is now adding the same exact edit onto the EWF page. 10) New Edit: 18 January 2019 diff hist 0‎ Template:Chicago (band) Original Edit: 06:38, 17 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,114 bytes) 0‎.

I really do not know the proper process for reporting this, so I figured it best to notify you. I am also going to post this on the page for user Swarm since he initiated the block. Regards209.212.21.197 (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Take part in a survey

Hi Binksternet

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

PROD Hearing (person)

I noticed you did some work on Hearing (person). I'm just letting you know that I have proposed this article for deletion.CircleGirl (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I prodded it, too, but it was kept. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Infected Mushroom and associated acts

Hello. I see you’re very active with maintenance related to Nervo (DJs) and thought I might ask for your help. Personally, I feel like the page in the title of this section needs a cleanup, particularly around the infobox with associated acts. To me, it just seems... bloated. Is there any way you’d be able to help trim it down as well as any other cleanup you feel is necessary? Thanks in advance! 66.87.148.69 (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

MOS location

Hey man, hope you are well. I need some help (again). I'm looking for the policy page that explains the MOS regarding using generalised genre terms in the leads of album articles. IE "heavy metal" vs "metalcore" etc. Know what I'm referring to? Robvanvee 08:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's not for albums but there's the template instructions at Template:Infobox_musical_artist#genre, which says "aim for generality". The same template for albums and songs does not say to aim for generality: Template:Infobox_album#genre and Template:Infobox_song#genre. So my take on it is that artist's infobox genres should lean toward generalised terms while albums and songs don't have to. In all cases, article body text can be used to explain things. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. However I'm referring to the lead when it says "Kill 'Em All is the debut studio album by the American heavy metal band Metallica" instead of "Kill 'Em All is the debut studio album by the American thrash metal band Metallica". Where would it say that generality should be sought in the lead? Robvanvee 16:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Nothing specifically talks about genres like that, but the lead guideline, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, says to summarize the article body text. Metallica was known for thrash metal during their first decade but with Metallica in 1991 they broadened their scope to more general heavy metal, with prog metal, hard rock and alt metal influences. If the article was about Metallica's first ten years, it would call them a thrash metal band. But it's about their entire career, so the summary of "heavy metal" seems to fit. It could be argued that the first sentence could list both genres – thrash and heavy metal. You might want to start a WP:Request for comment on the band's talk page. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh no, just using that album as an example. A new editor was changing heavy metal to metalcore on loads of albums leads and wanted to point them to a policy specifically related to leads in musical articles. Anyway, got the info I need so thanks again. Cheers. Robvanvee 19:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Port of Miami 2

Hello, which date is Rick Ross' Port of miami 2 to be releaed Oreratile1207 (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

(stalking)@Oreratile1207: Port of Miami 2 was "coming soon" in March, Ross was purportedly "putting the last touches on the album" in May, some kind of pre-release celebration took place in August, but the latest news that you can find in Google News does not reveal a specific date. Sam Sailor 12:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Albums

Hi Binksternet, can you let me know why you're reverting my edits because I believe that I have made the articles better by re-arranging sentences to the appropriate paragraph, and I have also added new info which can be considered important (e.g there was no date of when Thriller reached number 1 before my edit). I also took on board what you said about not having repeated info that's already in the article. With the Bad album, I also found new info on how much it sold first week and cited a reliable source. 88.111.139.176 (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

At Nirvana (band) you brought in fender.com as a source for 80 million in sales, but Fender is not a sales certification source. At MTV Unplugged in New York, you changed the genres without any change to the sourcing. At The Dark Side of the Moon you named Rolling Stone as the source saying the album is one of the greatest ever made, but many sources have said that, so naming one of them makes it seem less widespread.

Many of your changes are not an improvement to the previous writing, which is why I'm reverting a lot of what you've done. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay I understand where you're coming from. But I did try to add more info on the MJ albums because I compared it to to other artists of the 21st century, who's albums are nowhere near as iconic as for example Thriller) yet their article has much more detail and depth e.g Adele's 25 album has more depth than Thriller... 88.111.139.176 (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Can I know why you reverted my edit? There is no source at all to claim that hip hop is in the album. You also didn't revert anyone else's edit, but mine. This makes me think you automatically revert whatever I do, evenif you haven't seen the improvements/corrections considering many users have been editing that article. 88.111.139.176 (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, I would like to let you know that you have ignored some questions I have left on your page, and ignored my replies on my page. 88.111.139.176 (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Scorpion (Drake album)

Hi, just letting you know that Lyricalmigibalvd is also editing as Tracklista, see Talk:Scorpion (Drake album)#socks. For the time being, it's probably best to just keep an eye on it. 113.210.57.24 (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Skins

if there’s “not an overall genre” and youre going to continue to label it various, why don’t you feel free to label the millions of albums on wikipedia with multiple genres as “various” then. i believe your taking the “genre” tag a little too literal. if there is a wp page that supports your decisions, please do direct me towards them EveryonesFAVORITE*toy (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

First things first: The infobox is the place for brief bits of factual information. If such information is complicated, it should be described in prose in the article body. The genre of the Skins album by XXXTentacion is complicated, as nearly every source has said.

Second: Infobox album genres are not merely a collection of song genres. Album genres should be explicitly stated in the source as being the genre of the album as a whole. If the source talks about how the songs are a mix of genres, then the source is not naming the album genre. Editors here are welcome to use prose to describe the song genres in an article about the album, but the infobox genre should reflect only the sources talking about the overall album genre. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Winter blessings to you! Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Binksternet, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas! -Fwth

File:Restaurant Bob l'éponge (1).jpg

Merry Chr1stmas and Happy H0lidays, Binksternet!


Hey Binksternet, i lOvE yOu and wish you a pleasant Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year.
Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. 🐇🐇🐇
Flooded with them hundreds 09:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Beastie Boys at Tin Pan Alley

Hello I’ll communication by beastie boys was also recorded at Tin Pan Alley Studios New York City located at 28th street nyc please see album liner notes thanks please add yo info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.4.148.109 (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Done. Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

John Candy Page

Hello. I'm having trouble finding common ground in regards to references citing John Candy's ethnicity. Two of my edits have been reverted. You stated that the Netflix source is not a good one because it copies and pastes info from IMDB. Would IMDB be a good source to use then? Or do you have any other suggestions. 2601:143:4200:700:30AC:60E3:9B2E:A0A1 (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

IMDb is not considered a reliable source because it allows readers to edit the information. Your best bet would be a biography written about Candy. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

My edits

Why do you change back my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:D501:9800:3D62:3943:FAE7:37CD (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Maroon 5

Can something be done about all the junk that is being added to the Maroon 5 and their songs? Editors keep adding references to Youtube videos. I see you reverted one of them and they reverted you right back [4]. I complained about it in a few places and was surprised how little any one cared: Talk:Maroon_5#Mention_of_this_article_regarding_references_to_Youtube_videos. Thoughts on how to address this? I don't think we should be here helping Maroon 5 get more Youtube views.

Any thoughts on edits like this: [5]. Tons of stuff like that in the Maroon 5 songs. I think it should all be deleted.

--David Tornheim (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I answered at your Maroon 5 discussion. Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

BGBSS-66066

Was a bit concerned about revisions to house music page by user BGBSS-66066. Have reverted as they made the layout harder to follow on my PC. What is nowiki please?

(Mr Dog 1982 (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC))

Thanks for reverting that person. Whoever it is, they are messing up the infobox with incorrect wiki markup coding. The nowiki markup tells the wiki system not to follow a particular command and to display it instead, which is wrong in this case. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

skate punk

that source you say is unreliable has a panel and each writer has a biography. That writer is a staff writer from Sounds magazine. Which is reliable. Please read all edits and revert your edit. After it has enough time in some hours I can revert it for you. also does this seem like a music characteristic to you. "Author Steve Fenton wrote, "There are approximately 100 Skate Punk bands that sound exactly like Blink 182 within every populated square mile of Europe."" thats not a characteristic. revert or I will later. I can add each edit individually too. There is no way all that bad grammar and other mistakes, which is not anything like an encyclopedia is good for wikipedia. heres his page its a reliable source. The writer is a reliable source. https://www.udiscovermusic.com/author/timpeacockusmwriter/ ok thanks mr binksternet. have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:0:2996:1C8D:524:4125:723C (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks for the note. I see that everything you said is correct. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I understand now that you are CombatMarshmallow evading the indefinite block. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Bonzofreak

This user keep removing sourced information from the page Jonathan Mover. Rodericksilly (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I see a conflict of interest, big time. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we move quite a lot of the stuff about Marillion from Mover's page to the article Fugazi, as it's become quite a big passage about a very short phase of his career? In my view, mentioning that his departure was due to a conflict with Fish is sufficient for the Mover page. Your thoughts are appreciated. Rodericksilly (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sambora

Hi....we noticed that the page had incorrect information in the writing credits for 'Bon Jovi - This House is Not For Sale' so we changed it then noticed you changed it back again.

Phil X did not have any part in writing any of the songs on the album. All one needs to do is look at the album's credits to see that.

We also noticed incorrect information on the page about Richie Sambora and found it to be very biased and inflammatory. He had one DUI in 2008, not multiple.

He broke his shoulder during a break between the first and second leg of a tour in 2006 and was taking painkillers for that and was still drinking wine. In fact, shortly after he broke it he went back on tour and played with the broken shoulder. He entered detox in June 2007 because the combination of those substances was having a negative effect on him, obviously. They were not on tour at that time. They had just released Lost Highway. That tour didn't start until Oct 2007. @ the 18:21 mark

He then entered rehab for the 1st time for a week. (Sept 2007) It was done before the Lost Highway tour started. "On an emotional night dedicated to his father, Sambora opened up to PEOPLE about how he barely survived last year – the toughest of his life. “I got divorced [from Heather Locklear], I was going through a custody battle, I was having alcohol addiction problems, my dad was dying,” Sambora, 48, said before taking the stage with Bon Jovi for a benefit concert at Manhattan’s Hammerstein Ballroom Tuesday. The year long “Stand Up For A Cure” concert series will raise money for lung cancer research at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, where Sambora’s father, Adam Sambora, was cared for at the end of his life.

Sambora says of his recent experiences, “It was a gang tackle from hell, basically. And crawling out of that wreckage was a very triumphant victory.”

In September, Sambora checked into Utah’s Cirque Lodge for a week, overlapping with Lindsay Lohan. A major contribution to Sambora’s recovery is thanks to the unwavering support of his friends, his band (who rocked the house Tuesday with their version of the Beatles’ “With a Little Help From My Friends”), and, he says: “Oh man, my mom, especially.”"

He missed 2 months of the 2011 tour from end of April until the beginning of June when he entered rehab for the 2nd time.

He did not miss "several lengthy tours". The only lengthy tour he missed is the one in which he quit while on a break after the first leg of the WAN tour in April 2013. He was not in rehab for that either as is well documented. He was in Hawaii on a break between legs with his daughter at the time.207.161.129.149 (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

References

When you say "we noticed", who is "we"? Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/BGBSS-66066

Just letting you know that since your last message to this user, they’ve continued to make unexplained changes to the infoboxes of music genres. Is there any way you can take a look at these edits? It seems the user is also not willing to discuss. 66.87.148.175 (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Uncited Edits - Got To Be Certain - Kylie Minogue

Hello, Binkersternet! My cousin alerted me today to a strange fact on the Kylie Minogue 'Got To Be Certain' page: the song was referred to as a 'disco song'. He edited the page and, as the song has always been classed as dance pop before and is clearly not disco, inserted the correct information - drawing on the info from the AllMusic link already in place. I took a look through the 'Got To Be Certain' edit history and discovered a user called TheKaphox has altered the reference from 'pop dance' to 'disco' without explanation over a period of a few years whenever the wrongful information is corrected, without explanation. Not sure why. I checked the link at AllMusic which does not refer to the song as 'disco'. While disco was undergoing something of a revival in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, 'Got To Be Certain' was never part of that and the link TheKaphox used does not refer to it as that. I am concerned that history should not be rewritten and correct genres are listed on Wikipedia. I have left a message on TheKaphox's talk page, but I'm going to be without internet access for a few weeks so I would be very grateful if you would monitor the situation. Many thanks and best regards!

(Mr Dog 1982 (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC))

I looked at the cited source and it says nothing about the song's genre. So I removed the genre stuff from the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Side2SideDW and Techoliver298 are the same person

Hi. With my evidence, I doubt that Side2SideDW and Techoliver298 are the same person. Side2SideDW remains inactive since July 15, 2017. Four months later, Techoliver298 created on November 20, that has continued by months and make obvious that whenever s/he edit the page s/he will be the same person.

For example:

• Cheap Thrills (song): 12 Sept. 2016, Side2SideDW [6][7]; June-July 2018‎, Techoliver298 [8][9][10]
• Sorry Not Sorry (Demi Lovato song): July 15, 2017, Side2SideDW [11]; 8 June 2018, Techoliver298 [12]

2402:1980:246:3413:5BAD:2DF:229C:B713 (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting evidence. Looks like Side2SideDW is inactive, so there's little concern for harm to the wiki. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC discussion on List of 2017 articles that is really about proper use of Wikipedia:Article size. Requesting your time because I think a guideline is being misused

Please, I need your input. There is a conversation about splitting an article because of its size, but I don’t care which way you would vote on if it should be split or not. My issue is that the other editor and a companion-in-arms are misusing, mistranslating Wikipedia:Article size. These two are reducing the size of the largest articles in Wikipedia, which sounds like a noble goal, but when I asked what limit there should be on an article size, the response was 100 kB characters. The Wiki-guideline does state that readable prose should be less than 100 kB, but readable prose is the article minus citations, lists, tables, footnotes, and images, so I find the interpretation dangerous. The other editor said to get articles down in size, a yearly list could be cut down in half, in quarters, or even monthly. I cannot picture the easy usage of lists that is divided by month for multiple years. The guideline mostly states lists and tables are excluded from the guideline, so my objection to the split is that there is no justification except a misused guideline.

Basically, I think these two editors are going beyond being useful in improving Wikipedia and are moving into damaging Wikipedia, so I would like you to come to Talk:List of 2017 albums#Request for comment, read the discussions in the two section above it, especially Talk:List of 2017 albums#Redux, and provide feedback. I do not care if you say split or oppose, but to me the discussion is not about the split but the misuse of the Article Size guideline, and I want your and others I respect feedback on the conversation and the proper use of the guideline. Mburrell (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

COI

Hi Binksternet,

I noticed you, a while ago, identified Btsediting as a potential COI concern, and since then I've been monitoring their contributions to BTS-related articles given I edit them frequently. Looking at their contribution history it seems they still edit articles related to BTS semi-regularly, and though some of their contributions (such as this and this) have me thinking they may be a fan with an unfortunate name, I personally would not consider it enough to be sure. They've been contacted on their talk page twice regarding their potential COI as well, and their lack of response or action regarding it has me somewhat concerned. Given this and their frequency as an editor, do you have suggestion on what should be done? You're a much more experienced editor than I am, especially with things like this, so I figured I would reach out, as you identified them in the first place. Thanks, DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 02:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Your two links aren't showing problematic behavior. The first one is Btsediting commenting on the talk page in a constructive manner, and the second one is a minor formatting change, splitting article text into paragraphs. A COI editor needs to be reined in only if they are a problem. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Combichrist

You just undid all the changes I made to split the info into past/guest members, with an explanation at the start - why? I've been at 45 shows since 2005, and know the guys personally, but it's impossible to cite things that I eye-witnessed but which went unreported due to the absence (or closure) of Combichrist's various websites over the years. They do not have a strong online presence outwith social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themaidendecade (talk • contribs)

Check out the guideline WP:No original research, which limits us to stuff that has been published, stuff that is verifiable from published sources. If there's very little published about a band, then the band's biography will reflect that by having less detail. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, Themaidendecade, your version has a coding problem in the timeline, where all the studio album black lines are shooting off diagonally. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, someone else edited it and created the coding problem, and I don't have the knowhow to fix that (or the patience to figure it out). The guest members were already listed with the past members, I just split them up for ease of reading and future reference. I don't know why I'm wasting my time trying to create an accurate record of a band who do not keep particularly accurate records, if it can be erased in a heartbeat. The band (and their members) have posted to social media over the years, but life is too short to trawl through years of posts (some no longer accessible due to algorithms) just to provide sources. for a band that has continually evolved its live presence, I was trying to document it for those who don't know. Themaidendecade (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed the coding problem for you. 157.131.155.7 (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Quit Lying

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:157.131.155.7&oldid=880170637 I have done neither of those things, and there is no justification whatsoever for thinking I had. Your revert is reverted and you should quit lying. 157.131.155.7 (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hearst Castle

Dear Binksternet,

I don’t think our paths have crossed on here. I came to you via your excellent Wyntoon, via an article I’ve worked on, St Donat's Castle. I’ve long thought that Hearst Castle would make a splendid FAC. There would be a great deal of work involved to cover the Personalities, the History, the Architecture including the Casa Grande and the guest cottages, the Landscape, including the gardens and grounds and the wider estate, the Collections...... As it stands, with only twenty-two cites and a bunch of “Citation needed” tags, it’s quite some way off. The main editors, other than yourself, don’t appear to have edited it for about 10 years. I was wondering if you might be interested in a collaboration? This would be a long-term project; I’m currently involved in an FAC and then have another to which I’m committed, so it would be at least April/May, I’d guess, before I was ready to begin in earnest. And, of course, I’ve no idea of your own commitments, on Wiki and off. I do have quite a number of sources, having long been interested in the castle, although I’ve sadly never seen it. I’ve also some experience of collaborative FACs, having found them the most enjoyable and productive way of approaching FA. Anyway, let me know what you think. If it doesn’t appeal, just say. Refusal will in no way offend. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Great idea – worthy project. Every year in May I'm busy like crazy, but I will still be interested in collaborating. I have visited the place three times in three decades, none recently, but it's not critical since we build the article from published works. Do you have a copy of Julia Morgan, Architect of Beauty (2007) or Hearst Ranch, Family, Land, and Legacy (2013)? Those are the most recent works as far as I know. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! I think it will make a great project. As to time, I'm entirely flexible. If May's no good for you, we can push it later. As I said, the only thing I can't do is pick it up now as I struggle to work on more than one FA at a time. I don't have the Julia Morgan or the latest Kastner, although I do have the latter's earlier two, Hearst Castle: The Biography of a County House, and Hearst's San Simeon: The Gardens and the Land. Ms Kastner is making quite an industry of San Simeon books! I've also got a few guides, Clive Aslet's The American Country House, some scarcer pieces like Ken Murray's The Golden Days of San Simeon and a fair bit on Hearst himself. I'm always happy to add to my collection in support of an FA - I've currently got more books about Sissinghurst sitting on my desk than I shall ever need again. The immediately obvious split for a collaboration would seem to me to be The History and Architecture and Landscape - The House, Gardens and Estate, unless we go so far into the ranch that it becomes unbalanced. That would follow my usual History | Architecture and Description structure and I'd be entirely fine picking up either part. That said, I'm sure there are other ways to split it, and equally happy to consider any other suggestions. I shall begin searching for more sources and we can both mull over the division of labour, and the scale of the task. I suspect it may attract some controversy, both re. Hearst himself and the perennial Hearst/Kane - San Simeon/Xanadu debate, but that should make it lively! I'll be in touch. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Julia Morgan - Architect of Beauty has arrived, and what a beauty of a book it is. KJP1 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hearst Castle collections

Do you know whether anything has been published on the castle's collections? There are some museum quality pieces, his Greek and Etruscan vases for example, but what about the sculpture, the paintings, the books etc.? I think, like St Donat's, many of the best pieces went in the sales of the late 30s/early 40s, but I think we might need a Collections section. It would be good to know if there's much in the way of sources on this. This, [13], doesn't have that much. KJP1 (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

KJP1, there's one book dedicated to artworks at Hearst Castle, written in 1981 by Carol J. Everingham: The Art of San Simeon: Introduction to the Collection 9780960699605. Copies of this book are held at a few of the UC campuses, Stanford, and several other California universities. Other publications exist which deal with Hearst's larger art collections, but of course those books would touch upon the San Simeon art. In 2008–2009, LACMA put together a Hearst exhibit showing 170 items, calling him "the greatest individual donor to the Los Angeles County Museum."[14][15]

There's a book titled Navajo Textiles: The William Randolph Hearst Collection 9780816514670 which describes 185 Navajo rugs, serapes, blankets and more, many of which were displayed at San Simeon until Hearst gave the textiles to LACMA in 1942.

Some news articles talk about Hearst Castle in 2009 giving back two paintings that were seized by the Nazis and then bought by Hearst.[16][17]

In 2011, a painting of the Madonna and Child was borrowed from Hearst Castle and studied by the Getty.[18]

For ten months in 2016–2017, an art collector's tour was offered at Hearst Castle, with tickets set at $100.[19] A local reporter wrote about this tour in the New Times.[20]

In 2017, the Guardian UK estimated that Hearst Castle only shows 10% of Hearst's art.[21]

In March 2018, the mystery was solved regarding who painted the Annunciation hanging in the Assembly Room..[22]

FYI, I milked five more items out of the website in your link by going to the Wayback Machine.

• Today's list of artworks:

• Annunciation painting by Bartolomé Pérez de la Dehesa
• Venus Italica statue by Antonio Canova
• Neptune painting by Simon Vouet
• Two Sekhmet figures and two Sekhmet heads from ancient Egypt
• Continence of Scipio, a 16th century tapestry from Italy
• Ceiling in Casa del Monte designed by Julia Morgan
• Orchid Vase by Tiffany
• Sarcophagus with Nine Muses, Roman ca. 230 AD
• Virgin as Young Girl, Spanish statue from the 17th century
• Relief of Saint Paul, from about 1525
• Covered jar in the form of a face, French Art Deco
• Cippus, Roman monument ca. 80 AD

• A year ago and earlier, the webpage also showed the following items:

• The Three Graces, statue copy by Antonio Canova ca. 1800s
• Marriage Chest, Spanish furniture, ca. 1600
• Merman mosaic, Roman from the 3rd century
• Wellhead, possibly Italian Renaissance, previously owned by JP Morgan
• Berdago Harlequin lamp from Austria

In answer to your earlier question, I would rather work on the background and history of Hearst Castle than write about the current condition. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Super! - Ms Everingham's work is on her way to me, courtesy of Mr Bezos' Marvellous Emporium. More than enough for a section on the collections. And absolutely fine: you have History: Hearst, Morgan, Building the castle, The Roaring 20s/30s, Hearst's farewell and National Historic Landmark. I'll take Architecture and Landscape; the Buildings, Collections, Gardens and the wider Estate. I think that'll be a reasonable split, but obviously we can review as we go. I am greatly looking forward to it. I think my current FA collaboration will wrap up soon. Then I've the abbey I'm committed to. And then we can crack on. But not in May! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

One other thought. It might be worth starting to place relevant material on the article's Talkpage, to save it cluttering up your own. KJP1 (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

And another - we'll need Xanadu in there somewhere. History - Cultural depictions? KJP1 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, last one for tonight. Is that Climate table really adding much? KJP1 (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ha! Great minds, etc. I was thinking the same thing. It should be shifted to the San Simeon unincorporated community article. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Not sure how this happened... Cheers. Robvanvee 09:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ha! No worries. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

A little Help

Hello Bink, StjJackson submitted unsourced information again, it looks like you are the last person to warn them about this, so i thought i would let you know and ask, how do i report such things? I tried reporting ion the vandalism page but the admin said it was "not vandalism". Untrustedlife (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep an eye on the situation. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Invincible and Bad

Hey Binksternet, would just like to let you know that if you actually go through the Invincible and Bad history, you will realise that the user "PopcornPuff" actually kept editing the articles and took out details that were there before I did anything. So I believe this could be a misunderstanding, that you may assume that I've been the disruptive one. Also can you let me know why you have reverted some edits I have done, such as the Dangerous album. 92.10.210.184 (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion by Special:Contributions/88.111.139.176. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Hey Bink. Would you mind looking here please. Noo Booi seems to think removing Spin mag and replacing with Rate your music as a genre source is acceptable and I don't want to be hit with edit warring on the 3RR rule. Thanks. Robvanvee 14:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Cheers! Robvanvee 17:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note

[23] Drmies (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Fantastic rangeblock. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

We aim to please. When I see you make these edits, with useful summaries, I follow. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

I think we crossed wires there. We'll see if the user returns after being blocked - policy says to block rather than protect when only a single user is attacking. Regards, Samsara 07:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the action. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Trying to correct the entry for Jimmy Smith - Hoochie Cooche Man

Hi. I just picked up this album and noticed the odd spelling of "Cooche" on the cover (not "Coochie", with an "i"). The spelling as "Cooche" is easily verified by looking at discogs, billboard, or allmusic, or indeed, the image of the album cover that's right there in the wikipedia entry. The usual spelling, with an "i", doesn't appear anywhere on the album, not even in the song titles. I've tried a couple of times to correct this but my edits were reverted. Since it looks like you've been involved with this entry, I'm hoping you can ensure the correction is made in a way that it will stay. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CC02:E445:BDE7:56D1:18FF:BBFE (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that the cover and the label spells the word "Cooche". Other sources spell it both ways, for instance AllMusic which writes the song as Coochie while the album is Cooche. Jazz Journal International spells it Coochie, as does the The Complete Library of American Phonograph Recordings. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The album itself - the actual physical thing created and released by Jimmy Smith and Verve records - uses the word "Cooche". There simply is no album in existence by Jimmy Smith named "Hoochie Coochie Man". But since other sources are incorrect, are you suggesting the wikipedia entry should be incorrect as well? I am not trying to win an argument here; I just thought this was pretty cut and dried. I saw a typo and tried to correct it. Every reference listed on the entry for this album confirms the correct spelling. However, if wikipedia is a better place with the typo, so be it. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CC02:E445:C04C:A6CB:1647:DFFA (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you reverted my edits? You haven't given a reason, eventhough if you read the article I improved them. 89.241.108.216 (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 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: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

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) 12:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Someone you know?

[24]. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Drmies, but there's no case page for the person at WP:LTA. I know about this person causing more than three years of disruption to music articles using IPs from the Yucatan, including ones that geolocate to Cancun and Quintana Roo. Some of the IPs I have seen are listed below. A few of them have been blocked,[25][26][27][28][29] some twice. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• 189.149.141.9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.150.3.141 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.153.138.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.153.134.97 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.150.2.97 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.150.8.207 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.12.249 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.132.235 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.14.181 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.93.73 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.94.213 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.90.50 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.90.144 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.95.177 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.89.87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.88.139 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.91.111 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.95.116 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.90.63 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.91.163 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.88.136 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.92.42 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.93.255 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.95.224 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.149.89.107 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Aha. Thanks. I'm looking into it. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry

I see there is an editor who keeps edit warring in the Sophie article recently. If you look at the page history of Big Fish Theory, this editor might be using multiple accounts for disruptive editing. The edit summaries look kinda similar to Crohnichiwa's [30] [31]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Certainly the person is pushing their personal agenda, not here to improve the encyclopedia. Let's keep an eye on the situation. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Instaurare/NYyankees51

I see that at Talk:Susan B. Anthony List/Archive 2 there is discussion of Instaurare/NYyankees51's COI with the Susan B. Anthony List. It appears that he worked for them, but do you know where that was declared and do you think the COI remains? Instaurare has made a number of edits to the article today, and I'm wondering whether he should be doing so... Mojoworker (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Mojoworker, the connection was revealed in December 2009 in his sockpuppet case, where it was shown that NYyankees51 had signed a talk page entry which had been posted by 70.21.119.84, an IP address registered to Susan B. Anthony List. NYyankees51 apologized for the slip, saying "Please note that the edits from this IP to the Susan B. Anthony List were made a few months ago before I was aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines."

Regarding your question about whether NYyankees51/BS24/Instaurare still has a conflict of interest, I don't know what criteria you would be looking for. In my view, a proven conflict of interest is something that lasts for life. This particular conflict of interest will involve anything related to the political action committee Susan B. Anthony List and its interests, which are American politicians and American political issues. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I did some volunteer work for them senior year of high school to bolster my resume for college. Was never paid and have not had any contact with anyone there since then. I've edited the article a bunch of times in the 9 years since and nobody found it necessary to ban me from editing the article, so I don't know why there's a push to do it now. Instaurare (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

How about because your edits are not neutral? That would be the first indication that there's an underlying problem, such as someone carrying a political activist agenda. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Which edits exactly are not neutral? Show me some of mine, and I'll show you some non-neutral edits of yours if you want. Do you object to this one where I added an extensively sourced section on the group's position on Trump? Or this one that you reverted through WP:HOUNDING where I removed redundancies, rephrased some overly-wordy sentences and streamlined the lede? I have not consistently edited Wikipedia for years, I come back and you're right back to WP:HOUNDING. Instaurare (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between HOUNDING a good faith editor and checking the edit history of an editor who appears to be making problematic changes. The latter is an action I engage in all the time here, almost every day. In checking on your changes, I found that you characterized defrocked priest Theodore Edgar McCarrick as politically progressive, which is in keeping with your political activist stance of making progressives and liberals look as bad as possible, while making conservatives and reactionaries look as good as possible. Here you removed the timing of a politician switching from Democrat to Republican. You made two non-neutral removals[32][33] of negative information from a conservative politician's biography, claiming BLP protection. Yet you cited the unreliable Fox News to say that a more liberal politician had angered conservatives,[34] which shows that your BLP concerns are instead politically motivated changes. There's a ton more of this stuff... You should be topic banned from American politics from 1970 to the present. Binksternet (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You clearly are not reading the edits before you revert them, which shows your bad faith.

• Artur Davis: Had you read the edit, you would see that before my edit it said three separate times in the lede that he switched parties: "After losing in the primary, he moved to Virginia and joined the Republican Party" and two paragraphs later, "Davis changed his party affiliation to the Republican Party in 2012" and two sentences later, "He subsequently moved to Virginia and joined the Republican Party."
• Theodore McCarrick: Had you read the edit, you would see that the two refs for the characterization of him as a progressive was the New York Times in an article written yesterday, and Bloomberg in an article written years ago.
• Andrew Cuomo: Had you read the edit, you would see that I cited The Buffalo News, an official press release, and Fox News. I was not aware that Fox News is not a reliable source for basic facts such as: "Liberal bill on hot-button issue angers conservatives". The fact that you've unilaterally declared that Fox News is never a reliable source shows your non-neutral attitude.
• Tommy Norment: Had you read the edit, you would see that the article said "Norment's name appeared on the adult infidelity site" while the source cited said "or someone using their names and personal information", and you would see that I cited the high bar of WP:BLP for such an accusation. Debatable, sure, but bad faith, no. The other sentence removed cited ThinkProgress; had you read the edit, the reason given was that ThinkProgress is a publication of a liberal advocacy group and thus not a WP:RS.

You are agenda-driven and acting in bad faith by abusing rollback privileges to revert edits you haven't even read and can't cite a legitimate objection to. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is one reason why your request to become an admin was denied. Please stop hounding me. Instaurare (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations, Binksternet. I logged in today to see that you did indeed succeed in your yearslong quest to get me topic banned and left a triumphant message. How does it feel? Instaurare (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting my talk page message which simply states "Others will have to follow through, since you now have a topic ban." How does it feel? I was angered and disappointed that you tried to score political points by trampling the amazing legacy of Susan B. Anthony, and now I'm soberly reflective about the continued need to protect that legacy from other political activists. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User Goblinboi1997

Hey there. User Goblinboi1997 joined three days ago and has since made ~35 edits exclusively to music genres. Most edits are missing sources or even edit summaries.

Music genres are not my thing so I figured I'd bring it to the attention of someone on Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force.

Hydromania (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I saw that a bunch of the edits are unsupported additions or inappropriate removals, but some of the edits are okay. I'll keep an eye out. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Lol The one edit I was sure was wrong, you re-added here. Clicking on those links brings you to the album description at allmusic.com. On the left (desktop version) under styles is "hard rock". Am I missing something? (Aside from possibly not being a RS). 05:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydromania (talk • contribs)

The thing about the left side genres at AllMusic is that they are not connected very reliably to the expert music criticism written by a named author, so at WP:ALBUMAVOID we have determined AllMusic's sidebar genres to be unreliable. AllMusic genres must come from the prose portion. In any case, the cited refs did not track the development of Dream Theater's musical style over the course of the three named albums. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Hydromania (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

18.61 & 186.28...

Hi! This edit to 18.61 came up during a stiki patrol, and I saw your name on the history, and it looks like an issue you might be familiar with, so I wanted to bring it to your attention in case you thought anything should be done beyond the revert/template I did. Cheers! Leviv ich 01:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep, that's the persistent vandal from Colombia described at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/CaMI!oWave2015. A bunch of articles have been protected because of him, but apparently the protection expired. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, Drmies placed a huge rangeblock on Special:Contributions/186.31.99.187/16, but our friend Camilo has found a way around that. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hardcore, deathcore, metalcore, *yawn* Drmies (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to add this to the LTA case. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Greatest Generation which affects an article which you have previously participated in a discussion about. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you! Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A Note to you.

Gettings, I'm a ugly Anonymous user that I change some genres. I like you to say I'm so sorry If I missed up. I never do it again. If I do one more time, I'm going to banned from Wikipedia forever. Anyways, See ya!

from, TannerGoethals3

Nice Edits.

Hey! Your edits are very good. Congrats, You're awesome!

From, TannerGoethals3 —Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ross Lowell

Hi, In regards to Ross Lowell's death, he is my father. I was there when he died at 3:15 am on January 10th 2019 (although Hospice didn't arrive for an hour and called his death slightly after his actual time of death). PDN interviewed my father's wife Marilyn (I'm guessing on February 15th) and PDN got the date of my father's death wrong in their post, along with the name of one of his movies which should read Oh Brother, My Brother, not Oh Brother, Oh Brother as PDN listed it. I've contacted Holly at PDN and asked her to make the corrections. I am requesting a copy of my father's death certificate from my brother, but currently because of PDN's mistake, the incorrect date of death is getting repeated all over the internet and I am trying to stop the incorrect date from spreading any further. I have never updated a Wiki page before, so I am not aware of the protocol in doing so and apologize if I did not provide supporting evidence, but the source you cited does not have the correct date. I just saw the message you sent me after I updated my father's DOD again Purplepeppergym (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Lisa Lowell

Thanks for your note. I, too, sent a message about this issue to Holly Hughes, unless I didn't get her correct email address. Let's see what happens there.

Is there a memorial service announcement? The correct date can be taken from that.

The biography still has gaps, for instance the year Ross divorced Carol, and the year he married Marilyn. Places he lived would be good, too. All of this stuff should come from published sources so that they are verifiable according to Wikipedia's rules. My condolences on your father's death. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

How is Future Funk not a sub genre?

I don't understand. What exactly do you mean by "extension of the same thing"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.76.35 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome

The music portion could use some love if you have interest! Attempted to patch it up a little by adding traditional music and Yma Sumac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Nastrusnic (talk • contribs)

Let me research the sources and I'll do what I can. Binksternet (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

AIV report

Hi Binksternet, noticed your recent AIV report on this edit. I'm not seeing how that's vandalism; is there something I'm missing? One of the criteria in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions is "provides context for the picture"; mentioning that the photo was taken at Comicon (as are many of our celeb photos) doesn't seem like "promotion." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

First point is that good-faith disagreements exist regarding how much context is needed for a close-up portrait in the infobox, where the surrounding environment is not so important.

Second, this is part of a larger pattern by the Portugal person, promoting Comic-Con, and it represents continued promotion and edit warring over muliplte IPs.[35][36][37][38][39][40]

I have never seen this person engage in talk page discussion. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly annoying for an editor to not engage in talk page discussion (and a policy violation in conjunction with edit-warring), but these edits suggest to me someone who is generally interested in movies, versus a WP:SPA promoting one event. The Tilda Swinton page has two similarly captioned photos, one identified in the context of Comicon, the other at the 2009 Vienna International Film Festival. If you feel there's a general problem with venues of portrait photos being identified in captions, maybe file an WP:RFC on it, but I don't think this particular case rises to AIV. I certainly don't want to discourage you from using AIV in general, you're name is one of a small subset that I apply less scrutiny to when checking out the reports (there are a lot of frivolous reports files, and I've been bitten a few times for jumping the gun on a block that wasn't merited. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought the guy's fervor had risen to the level of disruption but I admit I can get pretty deep into vandal fighting, losing some objectivity. Binksternet (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

User talk:99.71.105.55

You might want to take a look at the recent edits by User talk:99.71.105.55, who you've warned before. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

edit warriung agenbda

yeah like therre arent 15 or so people who have added to Hogans Heroes .....reverting vrackets doesnt equal removal of sources and a group from origins unless you haver an edit warring agenda. which you have. So not even close. Youy lkive in Fantasy world. Tjis fantasy is that "1" poerson ediots Hogans heroes related stuff. Good liuck gettiung a real wikipedia page. lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.150.203.215 (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This must be close to a record for the number of misspelt words in a short message! KJP1 (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hearst Castle - a quick update

Hi Binksternet - hope you are keeping well. A quick update. My abbey has gone into abeyance for a bit, so I'm now planning to finish off my half of the castle. I think the bones are there, though some sections need fleshing out. Any thoughts/observations on its current state would be most welcome. My second thought is about article size. We're currently at 59K bytes, 4,859 words. And that's before I polish up the Architecture part, and you add your History. The biggest I've previously done was 140K and just over 10,000 words, which is at the very upper end of acceptability. Something to bear in mind. Lastly, timing. Now I'm freed up to concentrate on this, I can certainly get my part done by the end of the month. I appreciate that's a couple of months earlier than we originally talked about. I'm really in no hurry, and the Architecture part can sit there quite comfortably until the History's ready. Just let me know your thoughts. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Let me take a little time to answer in depth. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Surely. And we'll need a revised lead. Shall I have a stab as we stand, and then we can amend later. KJP1 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, rework the lead to better summarize the article body as it stands. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, bar some tinkering and tidying, I think I'm about done. Let me know how we stand, and how you'd like to progress it. KJP1 (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You did well! from, TannerGoethals3 TannerGoethals3 (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Genres and "the"

Does this look familiar to you? I remember we had a disruptor a while ago who was adamant about that the/The thing (haha, not a The The thing, cause they're a great band). Dan56, do you remember? Drmies (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, super familiar. It's more block evasion by User:MariaJaydHicky. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Eoghan Lyng

Hello.

You might find some of the comments pertain to refspam, but to edit pieces from The Digital Fix, Record Collector, The Irish Post and The Playlist, which Eoghan Lyng has written for, seems unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.108.125 (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion centralized at WP:ANI#Linkspam citing Eoghan Lyng... Filter? Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 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 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

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) 10:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Reports at AIV

Hi Binksternet. I'm concerned that on a number of occasions, I have declined your reports at AIV simply because what you have reported is not vandalism. For example, consider this edit on Southern Comfort (Conway Twitty album); it's unsourced, it's not logged in any of the sources given, but it doesn't look blatantly wrong. Perhaps if the credits were "Donald Trump - sousaphone" I would block as vandalism, but this is one of those cases where you should assume good faith or explain further. AIV is for very obvious cases where a block is necessary right now; this isn't one of those cases. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I was reporting based not on single edits but on a pattern of edits, with the user being warned repeatedly about adding unreferenced stuff. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Where in WP:VANDALISM is "repeatedly adding unreferenced content" mentioned? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

TannerGoethals3 again

Hey, Binksternet. I'm so sorry that I edited bad stuff. I will never do it ever again.

From, TannerGoethals3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TannerGoethals3 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

HotNewHipHop

Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding HotNewHipHop should be count as an reliable source or not. If you want to. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hearst Castle - So where are we going with this?

Dear Binksternet, As a rule, I find collaborations are more productive when the collaborating editors talk to each other. Can you let me know where you want to go with this. If the idea of collaboration no longer appeals, or the timing is difficult IRL, or anything else has got in the way of your responding, that's fine. But just let me know. KJP1 (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Timing is difficult for me, and it's also difficult to predict when I'll have a clear stretch. Perhaps this week when I'm resting after eye surgery Tuesday, perhaps mid-April if my calendar stays empty. (This will be my second experience of intra-ocular lens replacement, a very brief surgical procedure. The other eye was corrected in 2017.)

Much of my Wikipedia contribution time is limited in concentration depth, with my attention divided. For instance, I often edit when I'm at work as an audio engineer, when I'm listening to a stream of audio, if the only consideration is that I need to do something with the audio if I hear a problem. That's when I can make little changes here and there on Wikipedia, and perform some vandal reversions, all while keeping my ears cocked. But assembling a Good Article or a Featured Article requires an uninterrupted session of dedicated concentration, to properly assess the sources and make sure all the elements are in balance. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Binksternet - that's absolutely ok. Life always tops Wikipedia and I wish you all the best with the upcoming surgery. We can talk again when it suits you. Take very good care. KJP1 (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive reverting

Amero-centric? What are you talking about, “a leg to stand on”? There are assertions that the United Kingdom has a preeminent influence in inventing genres that we all the know the United States initially pioneered on its own music history pages, and there are inadequate sources or simply no sources to back those statements up.

It is a page about the music history of the United States. You’re perspective seems to be far to Anglo-centric to a much greater extent. Nothing I posted was wrong or needs a specific citation. These are American musicians and bands. I am listing them as examples. You’re reverting reveals some deep insecurity of America’s influence on music. It’s bizarre, and silly. Honethefield98 (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You're edit warring without any references to back up your assertions, shooting from the hip, replacing sourced statements with something completely opposite in meaning. Wikipedia has a hard policy against what you're doing, the policy of WP:No original research. You're also violating WP:MULTIPLE by continuing the disruption you were causing with the IP range Special:Contributions/2601:243:400:F535:0:0:0:0/64. Behavior like that will lead to a block. Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The particular section I’m editing never had sources to back up *any* of the information posted to begin with, so why are you holding me to such a standard? Links to examples of bands that played the musical styles I am discussing should more than suffice. You’re getting mad at me and restricting my speech because you don’t like my “amero-centric” approach to explaining..um...American musical history. I have done absolutely nothing wrong. Stop gatekeeping. The Heavy Metal page itself discusses all of these bands in a discussion of the genres history, and yet some angry Brit muscled the United States out of its co-creation spot. Get over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honethefield98 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Please get over yourself and stop gatekeeping

What are you even talking about with your “examples” of my past transgressions that you posted on a moderation forum? YOU are angry that your favorite music genres didn’t originate in the UK or elsewhere Punk stared at CBGB nightclub, and was pioneered by The Ramones and Iggy and the Stooges. It invented Punk, it is safe to say. The Punk Rock Wikipedia article has been appropriately written to say so. Indie rock was a term that is interchangeable with Alternative Rock, describing the same type of music that was popular and arose in both countries throughout the 80s. Their pages say this. I’m sorry if I removed the UK as a founding location for industrial, I meant to add the US because the article itself mentions Chicago as an originating location but failed to include the US in its “country of origin” section. Thrash Metal was a sub-genre started in the US. I edited the Heavy Metal sectiom to include the US, as the History section of that particular page explicitly mentions a vast array of originating American acts and genres. Rock ‘n’ Roll first arose in the late-1940s. All of these edits you’re taking issue with are literally just expansions on what people have already written. I’m not stating facts or statistics that would need to be backed up by sources. You are the one getting mad at me for being “Amerocentric”...yes, I am literally talking about American musical history on an American Popular Music page. How do you honestly think you have an argument here? My behavior wasn’t contrarian or aggressive. I expanded upon what the article already said and deleted incorrect information that 1) wasn’t true and 2) didn’t bother to talk about the American involvement of invented a certain popular music genre on an “American popular music” page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honethefield98 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The Huggabug Club

Question regarding one of your reasons for deleting the cast list. As I read WP:LISTPEOPLE, it applies only to articles that are stand-alone lists, such as List of American film actresses. Is my reading wrong? I know Wikipedia has plenty of film and television articles with extensive cast lists regardless of notability, such as New Year's Eve Punch. --Shadow (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this removal, it appears that the list had no references at all, so that's a big problem. The list of performers looks to me like trivia (see the essay WP:Listcruft.) My suggested solution is to remove such lists at other articles, or just trim out the non-notable persons and adjust to fit.[41][42][43][44][45][46]

Specific to your question, I think the LISTPEOPLE guideline applies both to stand-alone lists and embedded lists. You might want to raise the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists with a note placed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Embedded lists to get a wider sense of what folks think. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits on Enrique Iglesias and Shakira pages

Hello, Binksternet, i'm contacting you here due to some reversed edits you have done in wikipedia articles that i have tried to improve, especifically "Enrique Iglesias" and "Shakira", and i want to ask you, why do you keep stating that "Be With You" was Iglesias' second single from his 1999 album, when actually it was "Rhythm Divine"?

Also, Why do you removed information from Iglesias' album "Quizás" which provided people with helpful information regarding the album?, besides, do you know that i am the person who first added "R&B" as the genre of Iglesias' song "Not In Love", then i realized it was an Urban pop song instead.

"Love To See You Cry" The song has s techno/ambient production, same as Madonna's Ray of Light songs and the work of Björk, why do you keep removing the genres?

Regarding Shakira's "Don't Bother", that song clearly has an electroc guitar solo on the bridge of the song and a rock production on the chorus, so, i would like you to please explain me why you keep reverting the song without adding any genre. Alberto279 (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I am reverting your edits because they are in violation of the policies WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability. You cannot simply decide what the song's genre should be by listening to it... Genres come from published reliable sources such as the reviews of music critics. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

But regarding "Be With You" you keep adding that it was the second single from the album, when it was the THIRD single after "Rhythm Divine". Alberto279 (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess you could call that collateral damage, with the good edits reverted along with the problematic ones.

I'm not the only one who is deciding that your changes are not good.[47][48] You got blocked for a week in February at the Dominican Republic IP Special:Contributions/148.255.184.222, and just today you got blocked at the IP Special:Contributions/148.101.194.247 from the same area. If I were you I would sit out the block of the IP so that you don't violate the policy WP:MULTIPLE – you are not allowed to use a different method to edit Wikipedia if your previous method is blocked. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Laura Pausini's music genre, she has made her career in the pop and pop/rock field, two of her most famous albums, Grammy award winner "Escucha/Resta in Ascolto" and Latin grammy award winners "Primavera in Anticipo" and "Fatti Sentire" are pop rock albums, i invite you to listen those albums entirely so you'll see she is also a pop rock artist even more than an adukt contemporary artist in the vein of Celine Dion, so please don't remove Pop Rock as one of her music genres, thank you. Alberto279 (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

You are not paying attention to my words. I said you were violating WP:No original research and now you suggest to me to violate the same policy myself!

On Wikipedia, song genres come from WP:Reliable sources writing about songs. Album genres come from reliable sources writing about albums. Artist genres come from reliable sources writing about artists. Can you point out for me a magazine review that says Laura Pausini is a pop rock artist? Because that is exactly what you need to find. A magazine, or newspaper, or established website, or other stable and respected source.

And "adult contemporary" is much more of a radio format than it is a musical genre. Don't get me started on that... Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/DC124

After a year and three months, the user continued the exact same edits, added "Nick Kibler" as a writer. Can you keep an eye on it? 183.171.113.33 (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I will. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Experiencia Religiosa and Enamorado Por Primera Vez

Experiencia Religiosa has a distinctive gospel choir in the song that is a fundamental part of it, why can't you add "Gospel" as one of the music genres? And Enamorado Por Primera Vez has an electric guitar as the principal instrument of the song which gives it a very 80's rock appeal, so Rock should be listed as one of the music genres there too. Alberto279 (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The main reason is WP:No original research. We don't decide what the genre is by listening to the song, instead, we summarize for the reader what the reviews have said about the song. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Ashanti

So you just going to delete my Ashanti and 50 Cent posts - CheeseAndDope — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheeseAndDope (talk • contribs) 03:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Torae

I wasn't vandalizing Torae's page at all. I saw that someone messed with the year of his birth & I changed it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.48.12 (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I've declined this AIV report. I don't mind you taking the IP to some other forum for edit warring, POV pushing, BLP violations etc etc but AIV just isn't set up for that sort of thing where a discussion is required. Can you please reserve AIV for users that clearly and unambiguously need a block right now without any further comment? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I appreciate that you have come to my talk page at least twice with the purpose of helping me see that more of our contributors are editing in good faith. You're trying get me to realize that I have been pulling the vandal trigger too often. But other administrators exist who share my viewpoint, that a larger pattern of disruption may be discerned from a series of edits, each of which is not so very bad.

Following your comment here, our friend above, who is using an IP from the Greater Detroit area, has resumed his insertion of unreferenced birth dates into BLPs, despite the warnings I gave him. He may have understood your chastising note to me as a green light to him. Or he may be recalcitrant by nature. In any case he has begun edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Cuisine of the Southern United States

I hope my attempts to revert the block of five recent edits to this article did not slow you down. You found a much better reason to revert—easier too. I attempted to do it manually because the information added was inaccurate (subtropic, plantation definition, etc.) (For exaple, peach trees will not bear fruit unless the climate provides a minimum of forty days in which the the temperature goes below freezing.) Why does this particular article collect so much crap. This time, at least, there were no intermitable cites via Google seach strings. — Neonorange (Phil) 07:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've been keeping track of this guy who thinks he's an authority on US weather, climate, and lots of other topics. Two weeks ago he was blocked indefinitely under the username Honethefield98. Before that he was using the range Special:Contributions/2601:243:400:F535:0:0:0:0/64, and he was blocked as Special:Contributions/12.86.50.98. He's still using the IP6 range, which is what you saw at the cuisine article. I'm staying alert. Binksternet (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

SPI

Can you make an SPI page for Special:Contributions/Khilieexodia17 and Special:Contributions/Justdoit123455? Both accounts were editing in the same pattern. 183.171.115.238 (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I will look further when I get the time. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Edits

You do not give any reason for why you revert all the edits when I have tried to improve articles. Have you read through the improvements/corrections? Isn't Wikipedia for improving articles in any way? Purple Rain has many indications that it needs improving and citations, which I have done. But for some reason, you keep reverting. Just give a reason because I've improved articles that need it, such as Purple Rain, but I believe you don't even look at what been changed. And are you the owner of Wikipedia or something, because no one else reverts as much as you do because from what I've seen, other users have no problem with the edits or if they revert they will say why. 92.7.38.194 (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bink, I just want to say I don't appreciate this sock's accusations against you. I revert more than anyone else on Wikipedia, as I've been told on many occasions, and I don't appreciate that record being taken away from me without evidence. :) - BilCat (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hahaha! Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Lord Infamous genres

You dont make sense at all, i dont put what ever i want, im just adding his styles, horrorcore is not his only genre, i guess you not Scarecrow's fan just leave me alone thanks for comprehension. Clitch141 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Genres are not like math -- there's not an exact answer. Genres should come from reliable sources published in magazines, books, newspapers, and established websites. You need to support your additions by showing where you got it, which source you used. If it comes from your own analysis, then it's not for Wikipedia (see WP:No original research.) Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Jonathan Mover

A while back you said you saw "a conflict of interest - big time" on this page. To let you know, the user is back and restored a lot of stuff you removed. Rodericksilly (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will stay alert. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

He's completely ignored your warning on his talk page. Rodericksilly (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 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: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

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) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

All Music / Windows Media Player References in Monkees articles

I was wondering if you were still intending to make those All Music and Windows Media Player references on the Monkees pages hidden. Because I wouldn't have any issues with it. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Lemme help you by jogging your memory. In-case you've forgotten. Here and here. Though it doesn't look like you've left any messages on the former. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we have any basis for telling the reader about Windows Media Player metadata references, as they are not considered reliable. The metadata is often uploaded by users and is not examined for accuracy by a known expert. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

This Time with Alan Partridge

Hi. There is a discussion on the Talk page of this article about a passage which has been removed. I have restored as I feel it is correctly sourced and relevant to the article, as the comment is from a journalist who is openly spoofed by the series according to one of its own production team. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Rodericksilly (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not my area of interest, sorry. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Schuldiner

Hello Binksternet

About my additions to the Chuck Schuldiner page and your removals: you have got to be kidding me. Providing a source about a musicians style is barely ever one-on-one accurate. Moreover, the remark about he technical finesse in playing did not refer to an album but to his playing (a memorial to his death). If you do no reinstate my additions, I will do so, and we can go back and forth forever if you'd like (I have plenty of time). Please also go through the entire article with same nitpicking vigor as you did with my additions. You will find that the article is full of statements without any references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.96.100 (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have been reverting your additions mostly because of the policy WP:No original research. You keep describing Schuldiner in terms that are not used by the cited source, for instance here where you say he used "Phrygian and harmonic minor" modes, which is nowhere to be found in the source, "Dead Again", Guitar School by Jeff Kitts in 1993. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform for your personal analysis. Binksternet (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Request page protection for articles "USS Cole bombing", "Khobar Towers bombing", and "1983 Beirut barracks bombing"

Hi Bink, I've seen your work and I'm really happy the way you strive to keep the information as accurate as possible. Over the past several years, I've seen in these articles "USS Cole bombing", "Khobar Towers bombing", and "1983 Beirut barracks bombing" being reverted by users supposedly because of the status of the victims that these incidents were not factually terrorism at all. This is really troubling and is getting close to vandalism, to say the least since neutral and unbiased sources legally classified these attacks as terrorism. In the recent article of Beirut, I had several users adding total inaccurate information that the bombings were not terrorism just because some other "group" perceived, rather than legally, the U.S. to be on one side of the faction due to support for Israel or anything that is very vague in justifying the peacekeepers as combatants. This is a great concern that I request that these pages need to be actively monitored and protected from being changed into something entirely inaccurate. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the Khobar Towers article is fairly stable. The Cole article isn't so bad, just a recent violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. But the Beirut barracks article is pretty poisonous, with active edit warring, and people on both sides creating problems by removing good references. My take is that the Beirut barracks viewpoint of the attack not being terrorism has solid adherents, and that viewpoint should be represented fully and fairly. I don't want to jump into the middle of that. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Songs About Jane

I provided with sources for release date for single ([49]) but reverted it back (blindly) by another rollbacker ([50]). 183.171.114.39 (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't delete the source you added--I left it. That seems like a fine edit. Take a look at what I deleted.

I was concerned about another edit ([51]) where it said July 9, 2002. It may or may not have come from you, since you seem to be using different IP addresses.

Regardless, the release date on the page is July 2002, which is consistent with what the WP:RS said that you provided. Is there an issue at the page right now? It seems to be consistent with what you want, right?

Also, do you feel I unreasonably warned you? I'm open to removing one or more of the warnings if we can clear up any confusion. I'll give you some slack as a new editor who may not understand our sourcing rules, how to use the site, etc. by WP:AGF. Communication is key, and I appreciate that you opened up this talk section here to discuss.

Note: I have also put warnings on this IP's talk page: User_talk:115.164.61.21 for messing with the release dates and not providing appropriate sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Good day, good sir!

I want to thank you for the help and support in my edit to the article.

I'm asking you to check out a few more pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=XXX_(soundtrack)&oldid=893114936 and XXX: State of the Union (soundtrack)), which, I believe, need your expert eye on 'em. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.112.99.26 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Ref error

I tried to fix this, read the help page, no luck. Maybe you know how. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a friend from Malaysia fixed the problem, which was the difference between capital and lower case 'm' in AllmusicReview. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

yes, I just seen that, I thought it might be the quote marks. Thanx for your help. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Raskit genres

Hello Binksternet, do you think trap music can be added as a genre going on what the Mojo review of the album says?

Raskit junks its predecessor’s egregious schmaltz for marauding bass and spartan trap backings.

And the infobox says British hip hop, when the reference given never refers to it as 'British':

Raskit is a sparse hip-hop album that attempts to re-establish Rascal not as a pioneer of grime but simply as a superior MC to his peers and followers.

Should this be changed? Cheers. 2A02:C7D:892B:3D00:F0DF:18F2:830C:A9B8 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The album has been called grime and hip hop. "Trap backings" is not saying that the overall album genre is trap. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, British hip hop is currently in the infobox but in the reference Petridis calls the album "hip-hop", not British hip hop. Should this be changed? 2A02:C7D:892B:3D00:F0DF:18F2:830C:A9B8 (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC) No worries, I see you've already changed it, thanks. 2A02:C7D:892B:3D00:F0DF:18F2:830C:A9B8 (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

LTA

I've created Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nevada IPs, you might be interested to comment. You can added other IPs whose same pattern or location. XavierClover (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it too soon to put such a page together? Special:Contributions/70.173.244.248 last contributed in 2013, and was never blocked. Special:Contributions/70.173.63.198 last contributed in 2012, and was never blocked. Special:Contributions/70.173.230.88 last contributed in 2010, and was never blocked. The only active IP is Special:Contributions/70.173.240.183, who has never been blocked. An LTA page is intended to document severe cases of block evasion. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)