User talk:Binksternet: Difference between revisions

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

Cultural impact of Shakira

good afternoon with the respect you deserve, I would like to know exactly why you eliminated some sections such as Shakira tribute artists and bands as well as tribute albums to her, if it is part of her impact as an artist. I also see no reason why you should eliminate the tribute thing, making tributes at festivals and video tributes shows how important an artist is. AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The reason is that you are putting together a new conclusion that is not found in any of the sources. You are violating WP:SYNTH. Your sources show that the tribute exists, but your sources fail to say that this tribute is important to Shakira's cultural legacy. You need WP:SECONDARY sources explicitly describing the sub-topic before you can start a new sub-section. Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It feels good to greet and be greeted, on the page of tribute albums to artists like Madonna they are put by the same bone source "Allmusic" and as a page like that of Shakira is not enough information I decided to summarize it in a small list within its cultural impact.AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Because of your unclear English, I am guessing that you are saying AllMusic is a good enough citation because you see it used in the same way at some page about Madonna. To judge that situation I would have to see the exact Madonna citation and the text it supports. But if AllMusic is being used in a manner violating WP:SYNTH, of course I would respond by taking it out of the Madonna article.

Your decision to "summarize it in a small list" was a decision to violate WP:No original research. Sorry, but that is not allowed. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there a range to block?

Hi, you reported 186.155.140.58, which I blocked, but your message on User talk:186.155.140.58 suggests that a range block may be required. If you can identify a range, let me know. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The ranges change over time. The person used Special:Contributions/186.155.116.237 in late May, Special:Contributions/201.244.43.180 in April–May, Special:Contributions/186.28.40.229 in 2021–2022, Special:Contributions/190.85.103.105 in 2020–2021, and many more slotted in here and there. I don't see an easy range to set a preventive block. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

IPs from Mexico

I've recently seen you post an ANI discussion about an LTA from Mexico who keeps changing release dates, and they were recently blocked, but now I think I've caught another few IP ranges from the Monterrey region evading the block:

• 2806:106E:23:C3D3:4DFD:223B:B087:EAB2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2806:106E:23:C3D3:79EF:9070:7357:A306 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They're making the exact same changes as before, which happen to be changing cited release dates to previously uncited dates—quite possibly the ones they saw when they visited the page for the first time. That's just a theory, but the point is that I think they're engaging in block evasion. Can you do something about this? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

This is certainly a long-term abuse case. The recent activity represents block evasion by Special:Contributions/2806:106E:23:37AA:0:0:0:0/64. The person has also used other unblocked /64 ranges including Special:Contributions/2806:106E:23:F32B:0:0:0:0/64, Special:Contributions/2806:106E:1F:4259:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/2806:106E:23:63FA:0:0:0:0/64. This person was discussed last week at ANI:Date-changing vandal from Mexico which resulted in the recent block. I will notify the last blocking admin. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

(Barry) Islands in the Stream

Michael, what are you going on about?

Carl Smith of The OCC states: "Kate boasts the longest-ever gap between Number 1 singles in Official Chart history. With 44 years between her 1978 chart topper Wuthering Heights and 2022’s Running Up That Hill, she beats Tom Jones’s 42-year gap between Green Green Grass of Home and charity single (Barry) Islands in the Stream. See the full list of longest gaps between Number 1 singles here."...see there it is in the article.

James Masterton says: "Kate Bush has also endured the longest ever gap between No.1 hits, topping the British charts for the first time since her debut single Wuthering Heights hit the top in 1978. The previous record holder was Tom Jones, and if we count matters from the very last chart week when the previous hit was top of the charts and the date of the first week the new hit climbed there then he officially had to wait from January 12th 1967 to March 21st 2009 - 42 years, 2 months and 10 days - to top the charts."

Alan Jones of Music Week says: "Running Up That Hill is Bush’s second No.1, arriving more than 44 years after her first - debut single Wuthering Heights - and almost 37 years after its own original No.3 peak. It’s a record gap between No.1 hits by any artist, surpassing the previous record of 42 years held by Tom Jones."

So if the OCC, Alan Jones of Music Week and James Masterton (ex-Music Week) have all mentioned this 42 year record relating to Tom Jones being on (Barry) Islands in the Stream recently being broken, maybe it is something of importance that should go next to the information about Tom Moore...as its the same kind of thing, except that one is about age and the other is about gaps between #1 hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.171.251 (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Thanks for sharing the quotes supporting your edit. I removed your snide personal attack. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Your Recent Edit on Singer's Aaliyah Page

Your recent revert on singers Aaliyah's Wikipedia page literally reverted that page back to when it had multiple problems. For example, that page had multiple un-reliable sources, dead outdated links, and grammar/spelling errors. For over a month, I corrected those things , I removed unreliable sources, by adding sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia, I updated dead links and corrected spelling/grammar issues. I also expanded on and added useful information on certain topics that were mentioned in the article. For a month, I put a lot of time and energy with up-keeping , up-dating and making sure that page was in current tiptop shape. Instead of reverting and removing every edit that I made, The least that you could've done was discuss which information to keep or remove, you literally removed everything. Lastly, the joke is on you because you didn't even analyze the edits, you didn't even bother to make sure that pages previous condition was up to code, instead you reverted it back to when that page had dead links and un-reliable sources in multiple areas.

OkIGetIt20 (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Right, like that aspect is more important than you cramming in tons of unneeded detail and refs, creating an obese cow of a bio. Aaliyah deserves better. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

SPI case

No need to revert user's comments on their own SPI case, as long as they don't delete/modify anything that you wrote. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

And thanks for filing that; the behavior/edits weren't quite as obvious as those of previous accounts I blocked, so the SPI filing was a good call. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Halsey "So Good" edit challenge

Hello! I am here to discuss the edit you made about "trimming excessive text" on the wikipedia page So Good (Halsey song). While most of the edit is good, the edit surrounding the heading "release controversy" you have made, I believe, has distorted the situation at hand, given the coverage and attention. while Wikipedia is certainly not a tabloid by any means for covering "gossip", the release controversy did provoke substantial attention/discussion/controversy/coverage which your trimming edit has misshaped/misconstrued.(again, obviously, this is my own perception). In conclusion, I believe the edit is a fatal use of Occam's Razor, but I would still like to confer with you to discuss the rationale. Thank you! Chchcheckit (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to get as close as possible to WP:BANREVERT without deleting the article. The problem at a bunch of music articles is that editors who were blocked for their disruptive editing are still editing through IPs and sockpuppet accounts. In this change, banned editor User:Rishabisajakepauler used a Texas IP to take the song topic out of redirect. My goal was to eliminate as much as possible the banned editor's prose additions, while retaining the notable topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. This rationale is valid given circumstances, however with the aforementioned section,as I was the one who wrote said section (with on your linked edit/said banned edit on taking out of redirect not showing this "release controversy"); therefore, politely, WP:BANREVERT has no role on affecting the section in any capacity, because banned user did not create section nor content. Thank you again! Chchcheckit (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Please restore your work. You are more familiar with it than I am. Binksternet (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Carlos Gardel

Hi! As I made clear in the edit summary, the article is not neutral. There are several theories and conspiracies about the name and date of birth of Carlos Gardel, and in the article one of them is chosen as the most "appropriate". Those who believe that he was born in France affirm that it is confirmed and there is sufficient evidence, the same with the population that believes that he was born in Tacuarembo. To this day, there are still disputes on this issue. [1] So I think the best thing to do is to mention both options at the beginning, as it is in the article in most major languages (spanish, german, portuguese, french, etc). :) --BePlus (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

As I made it clear, the matter is settled. Your link doesn't have an author, so making it look like clickbait published by BBC. Even this low-quality source doesn't say Gardel was born in Uruguay. Rather, it pulls out the old Argentine identity card which we already know is about Gardel avoiding repercussions from France because Gardel avoided serving France in World War I. And why was Gardel worried about France? Because he was born there. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, that's a theory! :) There are many references that affirm one or another theory. It doesn't make sense to just support one, plus the article has irrelevant data from...? I still maintain that both possibilities should be mentioned at the beginning, as in most languages, since there are reliable references to both versions. --BePlus (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

You are asking for a false equivalence, to treat one theory the same as the other theory. But the France origin story stands far above the other. Scholars traveled to France to discover the truth and found everything they needed. They deflated the Uruguay story completely. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

And that is the discussion. "The France origin story stands far above the other" is just an opinion, like all there are, of scholars, journalists, writers, historians, whatever they are. There are hundreds of references stating that he is French, and hundreds more that he is Uruguayan. It just doesn't make sense to claim that one is true, you claimed. That seems less than neutral, considering that nothing is confirmed.--BePlus (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

You should read more of the writings of the France origin, and you will begin to understand. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 'list of jangle pop bands' article

Greetings,

I have proposed the deletion of the 'list of jangle pop bands' article and would request you take a look and consider deleting it. I'd also like to apologise for the unwarranted hostility I exhibited in our last interaction.

Thanks,

Msftwin95 (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will voice my opinion at the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok got it. Also, re: my addition of 'Category:Jangle pop groups' to Aztec Camera which you just reverted, I was basing it off the page for their debut album which begins 'High Land, Hard Rain is the debut album by jangle pop band Aztec Camera, released in 1983.' Msftwin95 (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Try reading books and magazine articles about the band. Wikipedia is supposed to be built using WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Attempting to blocked my account

ban if you will i'm not afraid to you Leon s redfield (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to ban you! I'm just trying to keep your editing style in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. For instance, you made a style change that I reverted because both styles are acceptable. You insisted that a published source was wrong about a musical genre, which is not a winning argument. You added some genres to a song article without references—a violation of WP:No original research.

The encyclopedia is not here for you to establish your viewpoint. It's here to summarize published sources. Binksternet (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Audio Engineering

Hi, Binksternet. Doing good? I have a question. Your user page details your experience as an audio engineer. Do you have a website or portal where music creators can listen to your mixes and maybe hire you? Just asking out of interest and also since I do create music. Israell (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

No portal or website. I am a live sound engineer, sitting at the mixing console for live shows. Almost all of my shows are people talking rather than musicians playing. Two recent standout exceptions have been a brilliant Fantastic Negrito performance at KQED which I was privileged to mix,[2] and one song performed by Meklit Hadero and Kronos Quartet which I had a hand in mixing, along with Kronos staffer Brian Mohr. (Fast forward to 7:00.)

I don't mix songs in the studio or at home. The most I do at home is digitize and clean up rare vinyl recordings.

Good luck with your work! Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Gwen stefani page

What do you mean that the math doesn't make sense? Gwen's record sales sources and is already innacurate cause her sales have been updated, please use consesus and discuss before reverting. Moonlight Entm (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS for forming consensus is on you, the person who wishes to add new numbers. Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

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) 11:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

New message from NotReallySoroka

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories.
Message added 22:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Serial editor still at it

Checked his recent contributions and there are numerous instances of him unnecessarily changing lists in infoboxes, etc. to hlist format, despite warnings from both you and I. He's not the first person I've seen do this, either. Is there a protocol for this? I couldn't find anything in the MOS about using hlists. To my mind, this would constitute unnecessary markup, but maybe I am wrong.
—The Keymaster (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

If two or more styles are acceptable, then WP:STYLEVAR says it is disruptive to go around changing from one accepted style to another. But commas are only acceptable for two or three entries. Four or more get the list format. For example, PSS changed a list of four correctly, but also changed a list of two unnecessarily.

At Template:Infobox album#Notes the instruction says that "a normal bulleted list" is required for lists of four or more, rendered as list items separated by middots. Bulleted lists can come from two methods of markup, one being the hlist template.

I gave him another warning. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. This guy and his needless tinkering are driving me nuts.

Is hlist formatting mentioned in the MOS somewhere? If it's an acceptable format, I'm thinking that Notes section should be amended accordingly. The Keymaster (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to amend the Notes. The reason I say that hlist is acceptable is because the infobox instructions are firm on the point that any lists larger than three items should be displayed horizontally, separated by middots. The instructions are less firm about how to get there. The suggested way is to use a vertical stack of bulleted items, which the template markup turns into a horizontal list separated by middots. The hlist template is the other common way to get there. A third way exists: use the middot character, as in Item 1 · Item 2 · Item 3 · Item 4. The simplest method for most editors is the vertical stack of bulleted items. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The vertical list with asterisks is the method I use, personally. I've noticed that, for some sections, a vertical list with asterisks will be auto-converted to a horizontal bulleted list, while other sections will automatically keep it as a spaced vertical list. Not sure if that was deliberate on the part of whomever made the infobox scripts or was simply an oversight, but I figure the asterisk method as suggested in the notes then lets it default to whatever format it's "supposed" to be. The Keymaster (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The studio parameter is reworked into a vertical list while genres are horizontal. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You should read better before mass reverts

1. Article about lofi hip hop has this in the lede: "Lofi hip hop (also known as chillhop or simply lofi) is a form of downtempo that combines elements of hip hop and chill-out music." Not a form of easy listening music? Give me a break

2. House music revert. I strongly suspect you didn't read at all, because I was forced by you to copypaste most refs from appropriate articles (amapiano, drake's "honestly nevermind"). I mean, I am not against adding refs, but I was lazy cause I linked the articles I wrote about, and they have all the info and refs one would need. In this case, one should put instead.

Do you listen to house music at all? Because anyone looking closely at it will say that amapiano, BR bass and Drake's album are legitimate additions to that article. I suspect you may be not a listener of house music at all.. But then again, why revert so boldly?

I know you are a power user in Wikipedia, but c'mon, please read what you revert before you do. 178.121.33.109 (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for reverting that person's vandalism on my talk page. Have a great day! :) ACase0000 (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

please reply at house music and template:easy listening talk pages

It's been two days since I provided reliable sources for my additions to these pages (additions that you removed). Please reply back on these talk pages with your argumentation. 151.249.142.208 (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Gray Brechin

Hi! I noticed you reverted my prod on Gray Brechin. Would you be able to add a source to this unreferenced page to meet our standards for BLPs? Cheers! Jdcooper (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'll work on it. I was knocked off my internet service for a half day; now I'm back. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you report the block-evading IP editors you revert?

I might've asked you this before, but why do you not report the block-evading IP editors you revert? I'm not suggesting filing a time-consuming SPI every time, but, for example, Sergecross73 has a thread at his talk page for vandalism/open-and-shut block evading cases like this. You could inform him about who this latest 64.40.1.140 IP editor is and he might get to know them if you report them enough. At least if you did report these block evaders, maybe then they would stop editing (temporarily) so they could stop (re-)creating articles, moving content between articles (that you then revert, so then the moved content is on neither the article they moved it from nor the article they moved it to), or restoring the same edits. Constantly reverting them doesn't seem to be stopping them from making the edits. Blocking would at least slow them down. Ss112 05:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I did report that IP, but nothing has been done yet (the case is still sitting there as I post this.) Not everybody at WP:AIV is as understanding as Sergecross73. Every once in a while I file a report with the addition of more convincing history and diffs, but even those have occasionally failed.

On the other hand, plenty of other times my AIV reports were acted upon with a block.[3][4] I feel like the system is mostly working. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Fifth Harmony

Can you please explain to me why you completely deleted my full edit that I spent hours of research on in the impact and influence section? Kanyfug (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

?

I don't know how that happened. I was trying to revert Moonlight E who changed a good Reuters source to something much less reliable, and who changed 15 million RIAA certs to 21 million. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Informations about the Queen tracks

Hello Mr. Knowles. So, I am going through a lot of searches about the Queen compositions, taking a lot of information about them, as well as who played each instrument or contributed with vocals. This informations that I had added are in the book "Queen All The Songs: The Story Behind Every Track by Benoît Clerc". It's a book that, as the title says, shows a lot about every Queen song and also about the band. This book is very popular among the fans of the band. I noticed that the Wikipedia page of some albums are lacking information, thus I decided to add it on my own, but as you said, I need to show my references. So, if you think this source is a valid one, I could proceed and make that page more accurate than it is now. IthaloDillon (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the source is good. Please cite it when you are adding information from it. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Needtobreathe is not a Christian rock band

Hello, It has come to my attention that you disagree with my change that Needtobreathe should be categorized as a "rock band" instead of a "Christian rock band." While I agree that Christian rock is one of their genres, I disagree that is what their primary label should be. Due to the fact that their music includes several different genres of music, such as "alternative rock," "Christian rock," "indie rock,""southern rock," "country rock," etc., I believe it is most appropriate to only label them generically as a "rock band." Although many sources list that they are a "Christian rock" band, that is incorrect. There are just as many sources that reference how band has made it clear themselves that they do not consider themselves a "Christian rock" band because the majority of their music is secular. There is even a section within the Wiki page that explains this, so it does not make sense for the Wiki page to contradict itself by labeling them as a "Christian rock" band when later on it says that is not what their explicit genre is. While many of their songs have religious influence and are popular among Christian listeners, these songs are still considered secular. Many secular songs in pop culture reference religion but are not labeled as Christian music, including Needtobreathe's music. I and many others would appreciate it if the label would be changed back to just "rock" instead of "Christian rock" band. Joemamabingbong (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a discussion best conducted at Talk:Needtobreathe. You can raise the issue there, and more interested parties will respond. My stance will always be one of looking at published sources and seeing what the majority do. Your best argument would be showing a great many sources calling the band something other than Christian. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Scream

WP:CENSOR allows objectionable text that is "relevant to the topic." It is not an invitation to seek out and list profanities that are indirectly related to the subject. I would suggest that Wikipedia is also not a bathroom wall. ;) 67.180.143.89 (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough... I thought the cited sources might have stated the word but they did not.

I trimmed the prose to suit. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Msftwin95_reported_by_User:FlightTime_(Result:_) - FlightTime (open channel) 02:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Massive / Sticky

Hi, I'm a little confused as to why you keep reverting Sticky and Massive singles pages, considering they're Drake singles that have charted , have releases and have reviews.

I'm also confused why I'd be blocked as I'm not sure how it's disruptive to open a drake single page. 2600:1017:B810:EB36:2994:20BF:3A9B:264 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring Sticky, could you please also do the same for Massive?2600:1017:B821:E563:156F:CD8F:85E5:64BD (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Socks

Looks like you're Brettandelle's main foil. He's on my radar now, he's targeting a band I've edited and like, I'll be keeping an eye out as well from this point out. Fbifriday (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh hey

Remember Richard M.? Today I finally got around to properly filing for the deletion of his content from Wikidata, and was able to point to your AN/I post (from, sigh, 2016) as supporting material. Thanks. DS (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh. My. I had forgotten that guy. Thanks for getting that stuff deleted. He clearly wanted to live forever in digits. Which he gets through ANI archives! Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Cheers to you! Binksternet (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Some Advice

I noticed that you (and other users) have been removing genres from infoboxes on the grounds that they are unsourced. I think a better approach would be to look for sources and then, if you find them, add them to the pages.47.36.25.163 (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the proper way to add genres is to look at the literature about the topic, see what the literature says, and then summarize the literature for the reader.

Regarding your genre navbox campaign: A better approach would be to avoid redundancy in the boxes, putting much the same material into several related boxes, and then putting every one of those boxes into various genre articles. What a mess. Far better to avoid redundancy and keep each box focused. Binksternet (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You could always try locating whoever put the genres in the infoboxes and asking them to provide sources. 47.36.25.163 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Heh heh. I don't think so. People who put genres into infoboxes include a great many who make sweeping assumptions, for instance, that every song by a pop rock group must be pop rock.

Far better to look through the literature and summarize it. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Planes, Trains and Automobiles corrected plot details

Del does not offer to share his room with Neal, he promises to make sure Neal gets "a room for the night." Del does not have a credit card of his own, he has a motel discount card that looks nearly identical to a Diners Club card. The two do not "make peace" at the Braidwood Inn, they simply stop talking to each other, exhausted, and go back to bed. Only Del is angry when they part ways after the meal in St. Louis. 14dtypos (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you do it in 700 words? Per WP:FILMPLOT. Right now it's at 704. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I propose changing the second sentence of paragraph 2 to read "Neal is unable to book a room, but Del has successfully reserved one." Also removing the word "now" from the fist sentence of paragraph 5. That should get it to 700. Thanks. 14dtypos (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Composition

I did put in the key, bpm tempo, and time signature for the song Look At Me Now. I did put it in correctly. 448 Hz (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey

I put Dominican population between Illinois and California by mistake. I won't do that again. Dash John (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Explaining edits

I am sorry that you felt I was adding opinions in my comment explaining my edit - I was under the impression that explaining the reasons for an edit was good practice and courteous to other editors. I viewed the version prior to my edit as showing bias against the organisation and sought to correct it - you obviously preferred that version. 74.119.161.54 (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

My comment "whitewash" was about your addition to the article, not your comment in the edit summary. The group doesn't protect any religious freedoms, and the Bloomberg source you used is a machine-generated corporate summary, not written by a named author. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted your revert in Psychedelic trance

Your rationale was "rv poor sourcing" yet the only source I've added is a scholarly article by Graham St. Johns, same author, that has written a book on psychedelic trance that is used as a reference throughout the article. Another additional reference I have added was from the aforementioned book already used as a reference in the article. This isn't poor sourcing 178.121.27.136 (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the article I am talking about: https://dj.dancecult.net/index.php/dancecult/article/view/270 178.121.27.136 (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot that I have added a third reference too, to this book: Moreman, Christopher M.; Rushton, Cory James (10 October 2011). "Rave From The Grave". Zombies Are Us: Essays on the Humanity of the Walking Dead. Your revert claiming "poor sourcing" deleted that reference as well, yet the source was already being used in the Psychedelic trance article. 178.121.27.136 (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

If you are still confused how Dancecult journal is a reliable source, I quote from their "About" page (reachable from the link above): Dancecult is a peer-reviewed, open-access e-journal for the study of electronic dance music culture (EDMC). 178.121.27.136 (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

And, to say, it is affiliated with Maynooth University. Proof link: https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/research/research-news-events/upcoming-events/establishing-new-open-access-publishing-partnerships-maynooth-university-and-dancecult 178.121.27.136 (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Men in feminism

This edit of yours at Men in feminism was indeed a much better summary. Thanks for improving the article. Mathglot (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate it. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Ariel appearing on Honor Society

I thought she will be a part on Paramount Plus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.31.130 (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You wanted to add a future TV series appearance that is not mentioned at all in the Baby Ariel biography, and you didn't supply a citation. Articles about the upcoming series don't mention Ariel. Looks like she's not in it. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ridiculous warning

Please retract the absurd warning that I was edit-warring about Hannah Gadsby. I made a single good-faith edit on two different articles. That is not an edit war. You have been around long enough you should know way better than that. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Your edit is the same as a long string of similar ones, haters throwing shade on Gadsby by citing unreliable audience scores. We never cite user comments, user reviews or audience polls. Don't be like those others. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The revert was justified, but it would have been better to give the reasons WP:UGC (or WP:RS). Even if there is a pattern of other users doing something, we are still supposed to assume good faith, and it appears User:IronGargoyle has only done this 2 times on 2 articles in total. Perhaps it is time to add a warning comment to the wikisource, making it clearer that any addition of user scores will be reverted. -- 109.76.133.142 (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Falklands War artillery and Nick-D on the Battle of the Ruhr

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) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Cover for Ramona Park Broke My Heart

The album cover for the album has been deleted, can you upload a new image to the article. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Renaissance (Beyonce album)

Hi. All of MariaJaydHicky's edits on the album's article have already been reverted by other editors. The recent one you reverted (wrongfully I guess) is mine, where I had fixed several wrong sources and performed grammatical corrections throughout the article. ℛonherry☘ 07:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

She changed your style of "Primarily drawing from" to "Musically". She added pop and R&B to the long list of genres. I'm removing those per WP:EVADE. Binksternet (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

She also added the British "whilst". Binksternet (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

If you think you're a good editor, think again

See this, look for the word 'aggressive' and educate yourself. I don't have the time to quote it for you. 「HypeBoy」^TALK 16:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at the good-writing essay at WP:TITULAR which recommends against "self-titled" and "eponymous". It's not official policy but it is best practice. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The word "eponymous" is present on the very lead of The Beatles page, which is a featured article, no less. Why wasn't it reverted if it's such an "overused" word that "creates bad articles"? Why didn't you revert that one too? Or are you just focusing on pages where I happen to make edits? Either way, you're a hypocrite.「HypeBoy」^TALK 17:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Why would you go out of your way to insert that word where it did not previously appear? It's bad practice. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Dead Butterfly genre stuff

Hey there. I just wanted some clarification on this edit you keep making. I have no problem with changing any of the ordering you speak of, but your edits keep outright removing the "genre element" content, and your edit summaries don't address it. Is this an accident or on purpose? Sergecross73 msg me 18:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I interpreted the source as shifting from talking about the song to talking about the band's general style: "it's easy to see why fans get so emotionally invested in this band's work and have done for so long." After saying "for so long", the source says "The musicality is impressive, as the band incorporate elements of prog rock, nu-metal, post-hardcore into their heady brand of metalcore, proving yet again that darkness can be beautiful." The song itself isn't metalcore (according to Loudwire), so it seems to me that the source is talking about the elements they add to metalcore to create their unique style. To me, the source's "the musicality is impressive" is not "the musicality [of the song] is impressive" but "the musicality [of the band] is impressive". Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha, that explanation makes a lot more sense. While I didn't before, I could see how you could read it like that. That's not really my read on it though, considering the next part continues on to say "proving yet again that darkness can be beautiful." - the yet again part would seem to suggest they're still doing it, and at time of publication, considering it was an advance release single, that could only have been referring to that song really... Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Do what you will with it. The interpretation isn't set in stone. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take care of it. I'm not trying to cause you grief, I was just trying to understand, and avoid edit warring over it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Biographies

Do you have any thoughts on how biographies should be ordered? For example, I did some very minor rearranging here to reflect the format I've seen used for just about every biography page here at Wikipedia, only to have my revisions changed back (although not reverted, for some reason). The explanation they gave in the edit history seemed like convoluted word salad to me, so I'm pretty puzzled.—The Keymaster (talk)

The other editor has been active since 2005. Ask them what they were thinking. Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Seeing how he responds to others, I'm a bit loathe to do that, so I may just let it lie for now. It is odd, though.—The Keymaster (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

False accusation of making multiple reverse

You falsely put a warning on my talk page claiming I made multiple reverts when I made one revert. And you also falsely claimed that I was engaging in sock puppetry which you have no evidence of. This IP address was temporarily blocked some time ago and the block has expired and there’s no evidence that it’s the same sock puppet. So these false and damaging accusations from you really work against productive relationships among editors and discourage improvement of Wikipedia.

Now let’s get to the subject matter at hand. Some completely false information about the national electrical code was placed there ((100 bolts and less) and the information is not cited at all. So I removed it. Twice now people for no good reason other than that there was a temporary block on this IP address have reverted it claiming that it was unproductive or sock puppetry. No evidence for these things. What’s happening is people are insisting on keeping incorrect information on Wikipedia with these reverts.

Please don’t falsely accuse people and please don’t revert information without good cause. 50.225.122.226 (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

You must think I'm an idiot. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Also...

Sorry for posting twice on your page tonight, but you know who is at it again. For example, here. Three warnings now and no modification of behavior whatsoever. —The Keymaster (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I saw you warned him again. I don't think he is reading our warnings, to be honest (or he's ignoring them), because he's continued to make similar edits all day. I'm not sure what to do and I don't have enough clout here to do dole out disciplinary action.

—The Keymaster (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Bink, now he's reverting edits of his that have been reverted. *sigh*

—The Keymaster (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

??

Is there any reason I have received this notice [5] and User:Ippantekina has not?

Also,

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Tree Critter (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

You are the source of the conflict. That's the reason. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

But I clearly don't think that's true. Why don't you want to resolve this?

The resolution is this: WP:DROPTHESTICK. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The other way to resolve the "dispute" is WP:Request for comment. You can poll interested parties and try to convince them and thus obtain consensus for your desired changes. Either that, or consensus will emerge against your desired changes. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Because two people who have better standing here disagree with me I guess you're right; she technically COULD have recorded the songs before November 2020 and broken her contract but I think we both know that she didn't do that. Tree Critter (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

It's very different to say that she was able to record her songs beginning in December 2020, versus saying she entered recording studio X during Month A and was finished in Month H. One of those is too general for any factual statement about recording dates. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The only thing that Recorded: November 2020– states is that it was recorded no earlier than November. It doesn't state when she recorded it. It doesn't state where she recorded it. It just gives a timeline, per Template:Infobox. It doesn't state that she went in studio X at any point. It just informs people of how early she COULD HAVE recorded them. But you're right, she technically could have recorded them sooner. Tree Critter (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I never said she might have recorded them earlier; you did. I am saying that you are not using a reference for recording dates. You only have a reference indicating an opportunity window within which the recordings might have taken place. You could conceivably tell the reader about this opportunity window at the Swift biography, using prose to do so, but don't add it to every song article. A huge red flag indicating violations of WP:SYNTH is when the source does not mention the article topic. The Good Morning America interview did not list every song to be recorded. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

You're right, the interview only references her first five albums and when she could start re-recording them. Quick question though, maybe I'm confused, what makes up an album? Is it movies? Or is it the songs in question?

Because if she can't re-record an album before a certain time, it means that she can't re-record the contents of that album before that same time.

Synthesis is necessary when implication is necessary WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH What do you think she meant by her statement? That she couldn't release those albums before November? That's not what she said. She said record. And you don't record an album. You record the SONGS of an album. Tree Critter (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

But please, I've DROPEDTHESTICK, I recommend you do too. I'm wrong. Taylor could have recorded the songs back in 2016. She didn't say when she recorded them so its anyone's guess right? Tree Critter (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I think she re-recorded the songs legitimately after her contract expired. You're the one saying maybe she didn't. I stand by my interpretation of your addition as a violation of SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Well when the edit war discussion is over you can weigh in on the RfC that I open. Until then feel free to edit Swift's biography. Tree Critter (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

5150

Am I wrong here? Special:Diff/1102837021 The IP keeps reverting and an Admin back it up. IDK I'm asking because I trust your judgement. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The admin is reasonable. Explain on the talk page which genres are the ones that are best supported in the sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 05:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Reversion of key-signature category edits for pop songs

I see you reverted some changes I made to some pop song articles where I added categories for the key signature of the song (as recorded), on the grounds that the key signature isn't a defining characteristic for pop songs as it is for classical compositions.

I noticed however that there do seem to be several pop songs in the equivalent categories on the Spanish Wikipedia: do you think these categorizations also ought to be removed?

Another point: while you justified your reversions on the grounds that the key signature of pop songs "may be changed trivially for performance convenience": wasn't this also the case for March of Ukrainian Nationalists, which you didn't revert? While this song is most commonly sung in F minor, this popular rendition of it seems to me to be in B minor. --GCarty (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't change the March because it's not a pop song. I don't know whether the existence of a different-key version would be enough to add it to the type of songs that can be trivially transposed for convenience. Binksternet (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Music video links in article

Hi Bink, just wanted your view on this user's edit warring here. Thanks ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:EL says "External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article." The other editor would have to argue and gain consensus for an exception to "normally". Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You suppress a correction of an article about Vichy government

Can I know what is the reason why you supppress those modifications?:

"Vichy regime, or Vichy government, is the common name of the French State regime (

"To note that France is the only country of Europe to have two governments during WWII, the fight between the government of Free France led by General de Gaulle and the collaborationist regime of Vichy led by Pétain is a crucial point to understand the french History of this period."

"France protected the retreating of English troops, continuing to fight for a month."

"With internal oppositions, the French government began to discuss the possibility of an armistice. Paul Reynaud resigned as prime minister, rather than sign an armistice, and was replaced by Marshal Philippe Pétain, one of main figures of World War I. Shortly thereafter, Pétain signed the Armistice of 22 June 1940. On 10 July, the Third Republic was effectively dissolved as Pétain was granted dictatorial powers by the National Assembly. But in the same time general Charles de Gaulle create the parallele government of Free France."

"An internal war takes place to prevent the recovery of the French army and the French Navy by Nazi Germany, this is the case for instance of the Scuttling of the French fleet at Toulon " Proximo (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

What books are the basis for your changes? Because the literature says that a majority of French citizens were in favor of collaborating with the Germans. Please look at the 1972 book Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order 1940-1944 by Robert O. Paxton. De Gaulle did not lead a second "government". Michael Neiberg's 2014 book The Blood of Free Men: The Liberation of Paris, 1944 talks about the complexities of this situation. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

ABAI

Please stop wholesale reverting; I've improved sources; removed unsourced assertions, and over-all worked to make the page actually worth being a wikipedia page. Either ABAI is notable for a variety of things, or its not notable. You continue to revert it back to being a poorly sourced "hit piece" suggesting that it is somehow intertwined with another organization when that is absolutely unfounded. This is Original Research, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia Wikipedia:No_original_research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.98.71.171 (talk • contribs)

I'm sympathetic to any group that is getting maligned unfairly, but ABAI is truly in bed with the JRC folks who favor treatments using the pain of electric shock. Your assertions otherwise are unsupported by WP:SECONDARY sources, and you plopped more positive material into the article by way of primary sources. It's clear you are pushing a positive spin regarding ABAI. For that reason, I would have to say you are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Soul Train list of episodes

It took me years to find, collect, compile and add the extra information in the soul train list of episodes that you cleaned up. I'm very sad for seeing all my hard work wasted. It wasn't totally bad, as each episode that I added info was by watching the episode, and I do admit I loved every minute. ;) Still, it was effort and work that I put in it. Is there any chance we could restore that info, or find some compromise? Feel free to reply on my user [[6]], I'm not logged in right now. I'll probably take a long time to see and answer, as I'm a very sporadic wikipedian. Cheers. 2001:569:7E2E:2B00:6CD8:C97D:4D2E:C4E6 (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

You made the article be too large. My massive pruning job took it down from 399 kb to 145 kb. Binksternet (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware the article was large. I'm aware that you did a massive pruning job. That's why I'm here talking to you, precisely because you did a massive pruning job that removed a lot of my hard work. ;) How large is "too" large? TV shows' list of episodes are frequently large, but other TV shows don't have as many seasons, it's natural that it will be a large article. Some TV shows have one article per season to store the episodes' details, would you be ok if I created one article per season to add the details back? Msbarrios (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would be okay with you splitting the article up into smaller segments. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Family Research Council

I am here to discuss Family Research Council's Wikipedia page. Several of the sources used for the top paragraph come from critical pieces of literature despite discussing the group's mission and structure. I think the page could be revised to be more neutral when compared with pages from other groups. 96.243.103.67 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Such discussion, and constructive suggestions for improvement (not just general complaints) belong on Talk:Family Research Council. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I need your advice

Hello Binksternet,

I am reaching out to you because I think that you are one of the best editors about rock music. I came across a poor quality article about a successful but not particularly high profile guitarist who has been closely associated with a much more famous musician for about 30 years, and has performed on many of his albums and tours. This guitarist was a friend of my wife in her teenage years and so I would like to improve his Wikipedia biography. He was kind to her at a time when she was being bullied. For the record, I have never met him. The articles about the various albums list him as a guitarist in the personnel sections but there are no references. So, I am asking you what are the best reliable sources for use to verify that a certain musician performed on a certain album, and what are the best sources to get information about "borderline notable" rock musicians. Should I get an online subscription to Rolling Stone, for example? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

A subscription to newspapers.com often provides mentions of your desired subject before they were famous, when they performed in local endeavors. For rock music sources, you might try rocksbackpages.com which has a lot of articles archived. Otherwise, I would just try various Google searches, combining different key words, especially adding the more famous musician. Some of these searches might give you another key word and you could keep hunting with that.

To verify that a musician played on an album, look at the album images hosted at Discogs.com. We can't cite Discogs because it fails WP:USERG, but its images can be examined, especially if you open the image in a new window and enlarge it greatly. After you find him on an album you can cite the album liner notes or list of credits using Template:Cite AV media. Just like a book, every album is a published source by itself, considered reliable unless third party sources agree that the album credits were not accurate for some reason.

If you get nothing useful, send me his name by email and I'll see what I find. I won't steal your topic. Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Good Evening

Good evening, I would like to know exactly why you are removing so much content from Shakira's cultural impact page. Doesn't the fact that several artists are called by her name demonstrate her cultural impact? In addition to that, the issue is how she impacted the public and the industry, and that was on the issue of how she became an influence and trend in the public. Thank you AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The fact that some other artists have been called by her name is not an acknowledged trend. It's just some instances that you have collected. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Good evening, regarding being named as "Shakira's successor" or the "new shakira" is a topic that I am not inventing, in the text of the page there are the sources that its title explains as the "next divas of music Hispanic", that demonstrates her cultural impact and how many girls aspire to be her, so much so that there is a reference to an Indian singer who was named "the Shakira of India" due to her similarity of sounds and image. Artists like Michael Jackson or Madonna have artists who are entitled as heirs to them and there are even pages dedicated to that. Shakira is no exception, although to a lesser extent, I would suggest leaving that part on the page. Thanks AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Reverting one's contribution without any piece of explanation is rude and counter-productive

Sir,

In article The Unicorn (song), I added in the cover versions part a French adaptation. What I do not understand is that you slashed it without further ado:

1) it's rude;

2) it's unfair;

3) it's counter-productive because this small contribution of mine added a fact to our encylopædia, and you destroyed it.

You boast of 400 000 corrections on Wikipedia, how many of them are as unfair and counter-productive?

I have little hope in your sense of decency since this sort of incident already took place; still, I am going to revert your reversion, maybe this time you will reflect before doing anything – if that is possible to you – and have the decency of writing then some explanatory words.

5915961t (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I explained twice why I removed your addition. The explanation is in the provided link: WP:SONGCOVER.

You would need to cite a WP:SECONDARY source commenting on the cover version to show that it is significant. The fact that it exists is not enough; it should be an important part of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Entela Fureraj

I added a more detailed explanation of what i meant to say here Talk:Eleni Foureira. Moreover, about what you wrote... i'll tell you that the Greek state use the Jus Sanguinis to grant citizenship. This imply that her granfather was considered Greek by the Greek state, but i explained, on the talk page, why this does not mean that he was really an ethnic Greek.FierakuiVërtet (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

She didn't sing a single song in Albanian while her grand-father is considered Greek according to her. She is also Greek according to what she declared in the media. It raises serious wp:BLP issues to name her Albanian.Alexikoua (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we need another WP:Request for comment to settle this. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Obsolete v. Discontinued

Hello, I saw you reverted my change to HD-DVD changing obsolete back to discontinued. The sources on that word indicate the format has become obsolete, and the shift back to discontinued was actually caused by a few edits before me, where someone changed it from obsolete to "discontinued, thus obsolete" and someone later did a minor edit to remove the "thus obsolete." If we want to go with discontinued, I think those sources should be removed? Right now its "discontinued" but see these sources that say it is obsolete and that seems confusing. Sorry for any trouble. I can try and track down those edits if that would help? Thanks for all you do for Wikipedia! 2603:8090:0:3D93:E116:D9A:49DC:67E0 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Articles about historic electronic equipment do not generally say in the first sentence that the equipment is obsolete. The VHS article doesn't, the 8-track tape article doesn't (not until the second paragraph), the S-VHS article doesn't, etc. I think the only reason why it says "discontinued" is because the format is more recent, and it failed during the time that Wikipedia was up and running. Good writing would replace the "discontinued" word with a more flowing description. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh! That makes sense. Okay, I might give it a try later on? Thank you for clarifying though. I hope you have an awesome day! 2603:8090:0:3D93:E116:D9A:49DC:67E0 (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Combative behaviour/ Personal attacks

User @HypeBoy is being highly combative and resorting to personal attacks when attempting to communicating with them. Looking at their history i noticed you had also interacted with them. I'm concerned in particular with these edits made here 1, 2 can anything be done about it? Sissyonus (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried one thing at WP:AIV. If that doesn't work I'll try another thing. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Jose Feliciano discography

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

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

I'm wrong; I jumped to conclusions after seeing a bunch of this person's work reverted... The great majority of the work done by this person is okay, and should not have been reverted. I looked for other falsehoods but I could find only those two incorrect sales figures associated with Latin certs.[[7][8] That was certainly an instance of edit warring with two IPs (a violation of WP:MULTIPLE) but I don't think it's appropriate to report this person. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Verone66?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Board of Trustees election

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

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to previous election announcement

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

Significant contributor

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

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

Nomination of Paul Gilley for deletion

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

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

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

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

Album length trivia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swastika sources you found

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

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

In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Kirkpatrick Page

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

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

Pertaining to 175.176.0.0/19

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

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

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

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

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian military leadership and Nick-D on the First Crusade's Byzantine connection

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

mob rules

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

Cattle Decapitation's first full length albums

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I.P. user

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

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

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

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

Ampex Quadruplex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit revert

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

Third party opinion

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

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

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

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

Notice

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

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

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

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

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

Mosaddegh Cleveland ref

Hey, about this change [9] — I originally removed it because I couldn't find anything in the book covering that sentence. I've looked at Cleveland's A History of the Modern Middle East 4th edition, and I wonder if you're using a different edition. Page 274 is about the Six-Day War; "Muhammad Mosaddiq and the Oil Nationalization Crisis, 1951–1953" starts on page 289. Could you explain that?

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

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

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

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

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

The Quireboys

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

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

Socks on album articles

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

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

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

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

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, aversions of the tracklists available..

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

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

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

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

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

Possible block evasion

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

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

I’m at being targeted in bad faith

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

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

I have seen the tussle over Chris Brown articles between you and Instantwatym, and I think the energy would best be spent fighting sockpuppet disruption instead. You are correct: Lionel juners was blocked as a sockpuppet.[10] I'll keep an eye on the problem. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Question for you:

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

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

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

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

Fight the Power

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

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

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

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

Regarding the genre warring of anonymous user #47

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

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

DJ Clue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John 5 Grandson

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

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

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

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

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

He's back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 2022

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

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

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

Thank you (Passion of the Christ article)

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

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

Voivod edit war

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

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

I'm being harassed by an IP

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

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

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

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

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

Request for deletion

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

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

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the 1991 Gulf War air campaign Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, an apology, and a question

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

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

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

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

Your accusations of a pro-American/anti-British perspective

You have an anti-American/pro-British bias that is non-neutral, and, as at Scene (subculture), Shock rock, Street style, and more, you've repeatedly deleted edits that so much as highlight an American perspective on an aspect of culture, regardless of its relation to anything British. Seriously, what was the purpose of edit-warring Scene subculture to reinstate the biased claim that it came from the UK? It did not, and you didn't seem to be an authority on the subject anyways, the article cited to support it had nothing to do with the Scene subculture discussed in the article, yet you just erroneously upheld the edit that favored the typical Anglocentric British revisionism of cultural history. You reverse any attempt to correct or delete the obvious British bias on some of these pages, which is explicit as can be, for example, on the Shock rock page - which holds a non-neutral, explicitly pro-British/anti-American edit (that "British rock is more theatrical than American rock") in the summary of the article. Despite the account that added that quote being a sockpuppet, you have restored those biased-as-can-be edits, regardless. You started warring to have the UK added to yet another genre page (Crossover thrash) that was no recognized in the UK, and you apparently have been reverting any attempts to add a given music genre page, with acknowledged American cultural origins in whole or in part, to any of the American cultural categories. There is no explanation for that other than you have a pro-British/anti-American bias. You're obfuscating this by projecting onto me a pro-American/anti-British bias. You even upheld an edit on Street style that named Tom Ford as a British designer, and edit-warred the alteration of Fashion design, which cited Nike as a British brand, at one point...like, what? You just think every genre of music, subculture, fashion trend, etc is British? Is that it?

On the various decadal fashion pages, almost every paragraph describing a trend leads with "in the UK" - even when describing a given fashion trend that has nothing to do with the UK, like Grunge, or Hip Hop...it's absurd. The pro-British/anti-American bias is very obvious, and you seem to be one of the chief facilitators of that bias on Wikipedia.

You have built up a reputation as a bit of a tyrant on Wikipedia, so hopefully you attempt to read this and reason with me. It's also mystifying that you're going after IP's with a broadly similar edit history that is literally half a decade old...you seem to only care about sockpuppetry when you disagree with the edits being made. 98.253.186.130 (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)