User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet Articles created Significant contributor Images Did you know Awards

Missing Genre Tags

I've noticed that the genre tags for many Imagine Dragons songs and albums are missing a genre tag. I've tried to add the info to the articles I could, but my changes were quickly removed with the reason being "unsupported genre." As a new contributor, how can I format and support these edits to ensure the changes will stay? Bassgoat (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published thought. Musical genres must come from published analysis written by music critics or musicologists, and the source must be cited. Genres must be listed explicitly in the source, per WP:EXPLICITGENRE. We don't just go around to various articles and add whatever genre we think fits. That's why there are gaps with no genre listed.

To give you two examples of useful sources, this article by music critic Jim Harrington from The Mercury News says that Imagine Dragons puts out mainstream rock. This biography from AllMusic written by music critic James Christopher Monger says that Imagine Dragons puts out arena rock and pop. These sources could be used to add genres to the band's main biography page, but not to any of their albums or songs. You would need sources discussing the specific album or song to add genres to those. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Your dedication to keeping information reliable is incredible, as well as your dedication to educating new contributors on how to properly improve articles. Bassgoat (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for noticing the IP block evader with a semi-edit request. I was about to accidentally respond. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Lovely tea. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Foreign sources with American authors

Hey, I was thinking of something to myself pertaining to the OWHs in the USA list the other day. The criteria requires two sources from an American perspective, which had me thinking: What if there is a credible non-blog/wordpress website based in another country talking about One-Hit Wonders, but the author of the article can be established as an American journalist? And I think we have our "subject" so to speak. The website Spinditty.com is based in Canada, and has a few articles/lists on One-Hit Wonders from the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, 2000's and 2010's, and they are written by a lady by the name of Elaina Baker. Emailing her, I have been able to likely establish her as an American writer/critic from the southern US. Also, her lists use the Billboard Hot 100 as a base. I wanted to ask you about whether or not a source like this could be used as a source for a list entry.

Thanks ~ Alex :) Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a foreign source can be used but it should be talking explicitly about OWH in the US. It doesn't matter whether the author is American. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, in that case, I guess the Spinditty articles can be used! I'll notify everyone on the talk page of the article! :) Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, when I tried to add the Spinditty pages as sources in the source section at the bottom of the page, I got a large warning box in red saying that the page was registered on Wikipedia's blacklist. What does this mean? Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That means someone was pushing Spinditty links so hard that it was creating a problem, and an administrator created a filter to keep it out of Wikipedia. See WP:REFSPAM. Sometimes people only come here to promote a book or website or themselves. That's probably what was happening. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

There's more information at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HaigPatigian-HelenMills.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —holly {chat} 00:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Super-Charger Heaven genre

Hey there! I'm Pengo82 and as the title applies, I'm reaching out about the song Super-Charger Heaven and your reverse of one of my edit. I appreciate all you do for this community, but it would seem your claim that my genre source, music.mxdwn.com, is a blog is ill-advised. Upon visiting the contact section of the website, it can eb seen that multiple people work on the sites, with the author of the particular article used being different from the individual who you assumed solely controlled the website. Still, being ran by multiple people doesn't automatically discredit the site from being a blog, but when you add in the fact that they have a public relation person and described themselves as a an "online entertainment magazine", it can be assumed the site is a genuine news source and not a blog like you claimed. For this reason, it would seem appropriate that my genre edit is unreversed, but I'll let you respond with your own take on the situation before changing anything. With that said, thank you for contribution and hoping we can come to a conclusion soon! Pengo82 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The website's source code shows that music.mxdwn.com is based on WordPress, a blogging platform. That fact will be difficult to overcome. The website's contact page lists some other editors than Ray Flotat, so that's a point in its favor. What would really float the website's boat is if the writers were acknowledged experts in their fields, or if the website was discussed in the media, and especially if they were winning industry awards and recognition.

WP:USERG says we should not use group blogs, with an allowance for magazine blogs as in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs. In that case, the magazine should already be a reliable source before its blog would also be considered reliable. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've done some more digging and it would seem the site has its own LinkedIn page https://www.linkedin.com/company/mxdwn.com it would seem the site is a pretty legit news source. Not only does the website described itself as a "magazine" but based on the LinkedIn profiles of it's employees, it would seem they're all writers and professionals. Being based on the source code of WordPress means very little. Wikipedia is based on the source code of MediaWiki, but so is https://harddrop.com/wiki/Tetris_Wiki a fandom like site dedicated to Tetris. Overall, your argument that the site is a blog and not an online magazine like it's advertised as seems lacking. Not all news sources will be world famous and widely mentioned. Pengo82 (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Having a LinkedIn page does not offer any additional level of reliability. I'm just not seeing that music.mxdwn.com has been judged as reliable by industry observers. We would have to take their own word for it. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 219, July 2024

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverting every single edit I’ve made.

What is it with you? You claim every edit I’ve made is vandalism and have reverted it, but I would like you to explain how it is vandalism? I usually add a source to my edits later on, but since I’m doing some of these edits without logging in, I don’t. Not to mention, not adding a source doesn’t make it vandalism. It sounds a lot like you have some nepotism or (judging by your user talk page) some narcissism going on. But regardless of any of that, I’m honestly quite curious on how EVERY edit I’ve made is vandalism, and why you have decided to stock me and every edit I’ve made to revert it. 2600:100C:B2F6:1718:9037:79E8:5546:AFC9 (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You have been persistently genre-warring, that's why I'm reverting you. Binksternet (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like you to explain how I am providing biased information on genres, or genre warring to begin with, when each edit I’ve made has either been already proven by A. Other people or B. Organizations such as The Country Music Hall of Fame. For example, Bob Wills is in the Country Music Hall of Fame, which obviously makes him a country musician. He also was in multiple western films in which he played Western (also known as Cowboy) Music. 47.223.111.239 (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

See WP:EXPLICITGENRE. We don't assign genres by association with a group. We assign genres based on WP:SECONDARY sources describing the topic specifically and explicitly as being in that genre. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

secondary sources would include the Hall of Fame, since they gained the information from other sources as well. 47.223.111.239 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I can relate to your complaint. Binksternet continues to revert FACTS that I add to an article (Tony Terran) about my dad (Tony Terran). I make occasional edits based on royalty statements I receive based on the recordings my dad played on. I can prove that my dad played on these recordings through official musician union residual reports and union contracts. Fans all over the world ask me whether my dad played on certain film and television soundtracks, songs, etc., and that's the main reason I try to keep this article updated. Yet Binksternet "thinks" he knows best when I am the one who gets the official documentation about these recordings, and I have actually been in attendance at some of these legendary recording sessions. It's just ridiculous when editors can't respect legitimate sources. It sure sounds like narcissism to me too, and I'm sick and tired of it! Daveterran (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Write your own book about it. Wikipedia cannot be your publishing platform. You have been warned about violating WP:No original research but you have not apparently taken it to heart. It's not debatable; it's hard policy. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

We have another one

Came across a strange serial editor from an anonymous IP who makes lots of odd, tiny edits—often formatted incorrectly—and who is currently on a tear changing "Side one" and "Side two" to "Side One" and "Side Two" on scores of album pages. Some of his edits seem to have been reverted, but not all of them. I can issue him a warning on his talk page, but you may want to keep an eye on him. Thanks.—The Keymaster (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

He also appears to be changing the wording of quotations that are cited. Good lord... The Keymaster (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm okay with capitalized Side One. Changing quotes is unacceptable. Binksternet (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

My feeling is that WP:TRACKLISTING and the general capitalization guidelines at WP indicate that only "Side" would be capitalized in these instances. Anyway, I've also alerted Sergecross73 to this editor to see what he thinks. The Keymaster (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Oasis

May I ask why you think it is excessive to remove more than six words on the break up Oasis ?. I think more than the band disbanded abruptly is not enough so why delete what I put in ?. Regards 178.167.177.234 (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

First off, you've been a pain in the ass for some time now, fighting over Oasis topics with many other folks while using a range of throwaway Irish IPs for at least a year now. Your English grammar is flawed, especially your overuse of the period.[1]

Specifically answering your above concerns, your wording at the Oasis page was awkward, redundant and childish. It was inappropriate. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me "pain in the ass" there is no need to speak to me in that manner. I have not done anything wrong with my edits. There should be more information regarding their split bar one line. No one seemed to have a problem with it bar you. I have never vandalised any page only ever made edits to help regarding the groups page. redundant, childish or inappropriate ?. There is no need to be rude. It is easy to do that behind a screen though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.177.234 (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Your interactions are characterized by such polite comments as "what the hell are you doing", "what are you doing you moron", and "Stop your bloody nonsence". Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Heads up

I have just caught wind of this person and see you have been dealing with them as well. I've reverted their last few edits, worst of which was at "Snowbird", where they actually changed the sourced genres in the infobox to contradict the accompanying citations.—The Keymaster (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Martha Marcy May Marlene revert

Take a look at the 1 July edits on Martha Marcy May Marlene by a very similar ip. Maybe revert further? ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, those edits certainly represent block evasion by User:Unkownsolidier from Greece. The idea of trimming the plot section was valid per WP:FILMPLOT which sets an upper limit of 700 words, but Unkownsolidier is not allowed to participate on Wikipedia, so I reverted and trimmed the plot myself. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July regarding a requested move in which you participated. The thread is Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_July#Srebrenica_massacre. Thank you. 122141510 (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Because of your continued engagement in edit warfare on the page Blasphemous Rumours / Somebody, you will be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You have violated WP:REMOVAL and WP:WAR, and have made several false claims to get your own ideology across, such as claiming NBHAP is a WordPress blog, when in actual fact it's a reliable online music-magazine. You have became a disruptive user, and for the good of this site, something must be done about this. Thank you. Mappy1983 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Binksternet has reverted twice. That's not edit-warring. You, on the other hand, are making personal attacks. That's a problem. Acroterion (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Reversions on link to Italo-Soviet Pact

Why do you keep doing this? I havent reverted you three times but I am reverting yours for the first time each now. One edit I made was a misrepresentation of what is said at page 401-402 of Smiths “Modern Italy” book (check for yourself), and otherwise me linking to the article “Italo-Soviet Pact”, that is extensively referenced at that page, are you accusing me of using wiki as a source? I just dont know why I need to reference a link to that article where all the citations are present. But if thats what you want I’ll add a citation, although I didnt see a need when I first did it, kind of like if you add a link of the extensively cited article on the Locarno treaty to the treaty of versailles, they are related. There arent citations given for the titles/names of wars and events a given wikipedia article is named after, from what I’ve seen. 47.220.25.185 (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m just going to add citations to my edits since I dont feel like waiting for your riposte. Although I find it ridiculous that, on the Bormann article, I have to do that. It wasnt framing anything as “alleged”, the only caveat is that its a highly controversial subject with multiple contentions, but I’ll add the opposite view through citation if thats what is required to highlight that authors do not agree on it. 47.220.25.185 (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your changes to Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact for the exact reason that I described in my edit summary: "rv unreferenced stuff and over-reliance on primary source document" which means I took out your unreferenced whataboutism regarding the Italo-Soviet Pact, and your insertion of the primary source document, an internal memorandum. The memorandum contents should never be offered by themselves; the whole point of Wikipedia is to get WP:SECONDARY analysis from expert authors. The cited author should be telling us about the accuracy or deception contained in the memo.

One thing you said in your edit summary was, "Italo-Soviet Pact is an extensively referenced article, why do I need to cite them directly just to put the link to that article?" The answer is that each Wikipedia page must be verifiable on its own, without having to thumb through other articles. Each article must contain every necessary citation. You cannot simply link to another article. Binksternet (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Céline Dion's accompanist at Summer Olympics Opening Ceremony

Hi Binksternet,

A few folk have mentioned incorrectly that Céline was accompanied by David Foster at the Olympics Opening Ceremony, but it was actually Céline's musical director Scott Price at the piano as per this Le Monde article Wiredwidget (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

PS It was at the 1996 Olympics ceremony where Foster and the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra accompanied Céline. Wiredwidget (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh my. Thanks for the correction. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. I see someone has already fixed it. Wiredwidget (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Kathleen Hanna

I added Kathleen Hanna to that category because Diablo Cody was in it. Cody wrote a book about it; Hanna wrote a book with a chapter about it. BenStein69 (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I still don't think it rises to being a definitive characteristic, per WP:CATDEF. The media does not regularly refer to her as a stripper or exotic dancer. She gained no fame from that work; her fame came solely from being a musician. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Brenda Russell

You currently appear to be edit warring on the article Brenda Russell but the reasons for your continued reversions are vague. Please discuss your changes with other editors before simply reverting. Thank you. Soultruck (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

A user’s continuous original research

Hi there, I have a question about a user and their continuous use of original research. The user (Espngeek) is very active on film pages and regularly creates or edits articles (see Minimalist film, Indiewood, List of American independent films) that go against Wikipedia's policy of no original research or synthesis. The articles mostly follow the same format—long lists. I know you've had personal experience with correcting their mistakes and have warned them multiple times. There is also constant use of incomplete references. My question is if you have suggestions on how to report their behavior if they continue to violate this policy? The administrators' noticeboard? Thanks. Spectrallights (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, WP:ANI is the proper venue for long-term problematic behavior with no indication of changing. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Folk-pop

I added change to that article because Folk-pop doesn't stay in boundaries of a blend of western contemporary folk music with pop. It is used to describe oriental dance pop music in the Balkan, the middle-east and Central Asia. I don't have sources but other wiki page about Folk-pop in other languages provide the arguments as mine. Sarkisevgenia (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Wiki pages are not considered reliable sources. See WP:USERG. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Sweet Home Alabama

Hi. Why did you remove that edit? It even had an source. Are cover versions not allowed to be mentioned at all? 2001:99A:80E:3A00:15E5:3853:DB8F:9489 (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The source just establishes that the cover version exists. It needs to say that the cover version is important. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Why? 2A0A:EF40:6A7:C301:A169:5E25:1DB9:3672 (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

You've been genre-warring, adding unsupported genres. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the New Jack Swing page

Hello, I noticed an edit you made on the New jack swing page. thank you.

We have trolls (probably British) trying to insert themselves into anything American. attempting to give themselves credit. New Jack Swing was created in America by Americans (like most modern music). including House music. New jack swing formed in the late 80's and simmered out by the mid 90's. Someone reverted my edit, but I undid theirs. if these trolls keep editing we might need an admin to lock the page once and for all. the problem is I have no idea how or where to find one? 2601:195:C581:26E0:4C03:736A:5B49:7854 (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Lots of folks get excited about music topics. There are American trolls who remove any sort of British influence. So let's just stick to the sources and keep these articles as neutral as possible. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Day-O (Banana Boat Song)

Recently, several of my edits to the Wikipedia page for Day-O have been removed by you. After the first time, I edited my addition to include more information as well as proof that the Wiggles cover is a notable one. I can assure you that I am not trolling, I genuinely believe that this cover on an ARIA Award winning album is worthy of a simple mention on the Wikipedia page for the original. As other folk song pages: "I'll Tell Me Ma", "Rattlin' Bog" have mentioned the Wiggles covers, some from albums that did not win such awards. 27.253.101.76 (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The album award does not lend the cover song any more weight. The cover song all by itself must be described as extraordinary by WP:SECONDARY sources, or it must have charted. I've been referring you to WP:SONGCOVER which sets a very high bar to inclusion. And now after your IP was blocked from article space, your registered username MarxismLasagnism has stepped in to continue the edit war, which is a total violation of WP:MULTIPLE, worthy of a block. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I will be locating a secondary source that discusses this cover as notable and worthy of a mention 27.253.101.76 (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Removing the mention of the Wiggles cover from the Turkey In The Straw page that has been there for years appears to be a deliberate attack. Why can we not simply add an "Other Versions" section to the page as a compromise? That way we don't deem covers as notable that others might not, but the covers that some Do deem as notable get the mention they deserve? The album did win THE ARIA Award for best childrens album, that makes it more notable than most. Can we please reach an agreement here? 27.253.101.76 (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Your "deliberate attack" is my "keep Wikipedia consistent."

WP:SONGCOVER is the tough challenge here. The song isn't helped by having a famous group cover it, or by being part of an award-winning album. What's needed is a music writer saying the cover version is extraordinary for some reason. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The Turkey In The Straw article went into detail about lyrical changes made specifically in that version. Other pages do this without an issue, so why is there one now? 27.253.101.76 (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue there was a violation of WP:No original research. The lyrics were compared from version to version, but this comparison was driven by Wikipedia editors rather than by WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Bullet Train (Judas Priest song)

Hello Mr. Bink. I quickly wanted to say, you changed Thrash metal to heavy metal on the Bullet Train article, even though the song is more thrash metal than heavy metal (fast tempo, drumming, shreddy solo, low-registered guitars) but you removed thrash metal for being unsourced. To play the neutrality angle, given how heavy metal isn't really sourced either, wouldn't it be a better idea to simply remove the genre all together until a reliable source is found? Tkgaynor (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, we can remove heavy metal if there is a question about whether the song is hard rock or something other than metal. WP:EXPLICITGENRE says we should have an explicit source for the genre. In practice, generic genres are okay in songs that are widely seen as an example of that style. Generic genres such as pop, hip hop, rock and heavy metal can stand in for more specific styles if the specific style isn't explicitly supported. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think he was more so saying that labeling the song as heavy metal is overly broad and thus, not necessary. I've found a book that describes the song as "a modern slice of power metal" so perhaps we can change the genre to that. Power metal can be seen as a sort of middle ground to heavy and thrash metal, so it'd be the best of both worlds, but I'll let you have a look at things first and decide for yourself. Carnivore82 (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 220, August 2024

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at two works on logistics and one on the Battle of Arnhem

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) 11:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Political positions of Joe Biden

Hi. At Political positions of Joe Biden, first you removed my edit because you claimed it had "undue weight", then I mentioned how I added his opposition to settlements, and now the reason is that Biden never acted upon it, but this is a strange argument since the article isn't Foreign policy of the Joe Biden administration, it's just his political positions, and what I added amply describes Biden's full throttled support for Israel, which is a notable topic. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

UNDUE includes whether the issue is significant to the topic. If Biden's position was widely discussed it would be significant.

You wrote "He also asked Begin to stop the settlements in the West Bank, fearing that it would hurt the American public's perception of Israel." Did Biden's expressed sentiment result in media discussion at the time? Did it influence Begin?

My gut take on your addition was that you wanted to smear Biden with the idea that Canada could be wiped out. You wrote, Biden met with Begin, and expressed his support for Israel's actions in Lebanon, saying "If attacks were launched from Canada into the US, everyone would have said, 'Attack all the cities of Canada, and we don’t care if all the civilians get killed'".

Your cited source was crowing about the Canada thing, not emphasizing West Bank settlements. Crap sourcing pushing political buttons. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

1) I took a look, and Jacobin is considered a reliable source.

2) Saying I want to smear Biden by adding Biden's own words (or at least as paraphrased by Begin who translated them into Hebrew, and then Jacobin translated them back into English) is pointless and hostile, and I can just as easily accuse you of being a Biden supporter trying to pretend he is a "decent guy". It's a waste of time and clearly violates the assume good faith policy.

3) Again, my cited source is considered reliable by English Wikipedia, and the emphasis was on Biden's full throttled support for Israel during the 1982 Lebanon War. The Canada comment was an analogy, and whether or not the source I cited emphasises his opposition to the settlements does not have any bearing on whether or not my edit was "undue weight". I mentioned his support for Israel's actions in Lebanon, and his opposition to settlements. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You correctly surmised I was accusing you of WP:Tendentious editing. Being pleasant isn't my main goal. Protecting the wiki is.

Your addition has been challenged which puts the WP:ONUS on you to gain consensus for its inclusion. I don't think it is appropriate, so now you must find a majority of Wikipedia users who agree with you that political mud should be slung in this manner. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you're right about me now needing to achieve a consensus, though it's odd that "political mud slinging" to you means adding to an article dedicated to a politician's political views information pertaining to his views on a highly important topic, views which, I might add, are hotheaded. I'm not entirely sure how you can take a look at your rhetoric and have the brass neck to accuse me of being biased, tendentious and trying to push through a contentious agenda, nor how any of this can be interpreted as "protecting the Wiki". Maurnxiao (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You're right. I'm sorry.

I'm truly sorry. Renebird100 (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Please have a look at Footwork talk page

We need your opinion there, Mr. Binks (Talk:Footwork (genre)#Invalid conflation of footwork and juke) 178.121.24.216 (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism at the 2002 Annie Awards voice acting production

Someone won't stop vandalizing the 2002 voice acting. No matter how hard I tried, SOMEONE won't stop changing the names from "Daveigh Chase" to "Billy Crystal", "Lilo Pelekai" to "Mike Wazowski", Lilo & Stitch to Monsters Inc.. This really has to stop! Can't you do something about it, si vous plaît? Renebird100 (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I went to WP:RPP and asked for temporary page protection. I wrote, "Block evasion by Special:Contributions/82.5.77.188. Disruption from throwaway UK IPs including Special:Contributions/92.40.197.59, Special:Contributions/92.40.197.130, Special:Contributions/51.52.83.216, Special:Contributions/92.40.196.78 and Special:Contributions/92.40.197.62." Hope that helps. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

thank you! Renebird100 (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

ThePRP

That removal from Deftones was intentional; I find its reliability questionable. Do you have any discussion or precedent on it? If there is, I'll drop it, I'd like it if you removed it if there isn't anything on it at this time. mftp dan ^oops 20:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but your source and the previous one transcribed the video pretty much the same way, showing how similar they are. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm certain this interview was the original release ThePRP lifted that from. Would it not be better to just keep the origin of the information rather than include a repost from a questionable place? mftp dan ^oops 12:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

So... can I revert it now? mftp dan ^oops 22:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Something you might be interested in adding to Shen Yun

A NYT article from ex-employees of Shen Yun, alleging abuses from management [2] 120.18.20.21 (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Good one. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Constantly Reverting Teddy Geiger's birthname

Hey, would really love to know why you're so adamant Teddy Geiger was famous under her birth name when she's only ever been famous under her alias which has become her chosen name? Like even going against MOS:GENDERID you constantly revert the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.133.203 (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm following GENDERID because Teddy's birthname was common knowledge at the time she was famous for being a teen idol. It was in published sources. It was on her MySpace page back when MySpace was the major interface with the artist. And in 2017 it was published by The Post-Standard in Syracuse, NY. The Chelsea Manning biography is given as an example at GENDERID; the Manning bio gives her full birth name including the middle name Edward even though the middle name was never part of her pre-transition fame, which was solely Bradley Manning. We are not doing anything different at the Teddy Geiger bio. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Manning was famous under her deadname because at the time of the leaks that was her name. Teddy's name was common knowledge but not the name she was famous under. She was famous under her current name, Teddy, all sources on her page predating her transition, including ones from 2005 use Teddy.

If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest.

109.77.133.203 (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Teddy's fame name was always known to be a hypocorism for Theodore. It's not significantly different from her birth name; it's the same source. If she had gained fame as Skipper Geiger or Kid Geiger you would have an argument. But Teddy is always and forever connected to her birth name John Theodore. AllMusic supplied her full birth name in 2010.[3] From 2006 to 2018, her Wikipedia article gave the full birth name. It was widely known. We are long past whatever privacy issue there might be for someone less famous prior to transition. Binksternet (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

In 2016, the book, Zayn Malik - Mind of His: The Unauthorised Biography, on page 189, lists Theodore Geiger and Teddy Geiger in the credits for the song "Where Do Broken Hearts Go". In 2018, the full birth name was published in Advance Media's NYup, aimed at upstate New Yorkers, in an article about Teddy appearing as a transwoman.[4] This birth name you are protecting is all over the place. Privacy is long gone. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Architecture of Denmark

Architecture of Denmark has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, Binksternet. As you were the GA reviewer in January 2010 you might be interested in checking out the updates Ramblersen2 and I have made to the article and perhaps pointing out any other concerns you have with the article.--Ipigott (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Voting for coordinators is now open!

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. 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 will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible MariaJaydHicky

195.174.246.254 (talk · contribs) 88.241.52.95 (talk · contribs)

I think MariaJaydHicky is using socks yet again [5] [6]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Yup. I saw another sock today: Fleurpeur. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

This guy not smart at all. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with the White Stripes pages!

The title of this really says everything, haha. I appreciate your help with the reverting of certain edits. I want to objectively try and improve the articles related to this band (and others, of course) because I am a longtime fan and have learnt how to do so with sources in a (hopefully) clear manner. So it means a lot that you helped out. Thank you! Watagwaan (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. Binksternet (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Go the Distance

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go_the_Distance&oldid=prev&diff=1244531223 You reverted my post, but the cover song is on an official Disney compilation album.Marty2Hotty (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand that the cover version exists, and it is "official" Disney stuff. What Wikipedia needs is some commentary from WP:SECONDARY sources about how the cover version is extraordinary in some manner. The guideline at WP:SONGCOVER sets a high bar. We aren't listing every possible cover version; just the ones that have been praised especially, or even ones that have been harshly criticized. Binksternet (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverts at Kill Bill (SZA song)

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that your massive revert on the article accidentally caused several, over-a-year-worth of good-faith additions to be reverted as well, including ones made as part of the article's good article review, and made the coverage of the song severely outdated. I reverted to the previous revision and kept the edits done after your revert; please manually revert the edits you think were made by the LTA instead. I recommend being more careful about similar actions in the future. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 06:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't figure out what I was trying to do on that one. Maybe I was on a roll reverting some sockpuppeter. Binksternet (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:ANI- Oh, nevermind.

Probably no point in handing you an ANI Notice, but a sock of an IP you’ve bumped into before, decided to run your name at ANI. Not to worry though, Black Kite sent their WP:BOOMERANG at them. [7] if you’re interested. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 20:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

All in a day's work. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

FYI, this IP MoS edit-warring case goes all the way back to more than a year ago - relevant old threads: one (from your talk page archive), two and three (from the admin User:Daniel Case's talk page archive). So treat this user just like how you would any other IP-hopping LTA. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible Aromat567

Hi @Binksternet. Blocked sock Aromat567 using IP ranges Special:Contributions/102.67.76.0/22 to keeps removing discussions on Talk:Liv Morgan, as well as changing other wrestler's height. Would you keep an eye for them? AmritR012 (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't target wrestling topics on purpose. The only time I touch them is when I'm tracking down someone who has been disruptive elsewhere. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hi! I created a sock investigation based on someone that you brought up before. This new account has been deleting an enormous amount of content over the past few weeks, and there's already a topic about them here. Just wondered if I'm on the right track or not. Thanks. PainiacPig (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 221, September 2024

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: Hog Farm looks at the bayou battles for Vicksburg

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) 21:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tom Dowd demonstrating the mix of 'Layla'.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Jon698 won't stop vandalizing Naked Lunch.

1991's Naked Lunch may be based on a body horror anti-novel, but Jon698 keeps vandalizing the page. Please block him. Renebird100 (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not able to block anyone.

There is a content dispute between you and him. It's not vandalism from him, but disruptive behavior from you. Work it out on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of BEC Recordings for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BEC Recordings 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/BEC Recordings 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.

glman (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Witchfynde

Hi there, Conscious that this might be perceived as an 'editing war' (which is not the intention), so just for awareness: please could I ask you to take a look at the page for the band Witchfynde, for which you have just reverted the previous edit. The version you've restored is full of grammatical and syntactical errors, omissions, missing content (e.g. timeline and several references) and subjectivity. The version which you've removed is the more accurate one, in line with Wiki guidance. I'm personally not intending to make any further edits, as I respect your authority on these matters, but it might be beneficial to restore the other version of the page, as it's less indicative of 'vandalism'. Up to you! 2A02:C7C:E23B:A200:AD05:5B73:6E9E:75A4 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources are in conflict about basic stuff such as the founding year being 1974 or 1975 or 1976, and who is in charge of the trademark today. The article needs a major reworking to get rid of modern spinoffs pretending to be the original band. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making further edits to this page; however, there are still some errors present:

The list of former members includes personnel who were never in the band; they were part of the 'spin-offs' who you mention above. FYI - the timeline included on the previous version of the page (now missing) contained an accurate list of the bandmembers.

(For clarity: I have no connection to this band whatsoever. I noticed that the page was inaccurate, so I made a number of edits to try to improve its format and scope, before it was unfortunately reverted to its previous state! Such is life...) 2A02:C7C:E23B:A200:9DA8:E4DC:A854:9270 (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Witchfynde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pub rock.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Very Rude

Your edit summary on Lung Leg (band) is very rude, I have been editing pages here for two decades now, I'm simply asking you not to revert a load of information because it isn't yet sourced and give me a little time to source it. Saying this "isn't your blog" is incredibly condescending. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

What's the rush? I don't understand why you are in a hurry to add unsupported information. The hard policy of WP:Verifiability demands that every fact must be verifiable in published sources. The facts don't precede the publication.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize the literature on a topic. If something hasn't been published, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

The ideal way to expand topics on Wikipedia is to read multiple sources and summarize them for the reader. You are working backwards. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Think you may be confused here. I did not add any new information. As far as I can tell this has been added either by someone in the band or someone close to them. I was asking you, politely, to hold off for a moment while I take the time to find new sources, as an editor who works on music articles you should know how hard it is to find sources from the 90s, the NME and Melody Maker not being digitized or available online. So in fact I did not add any unsupported information, yet another baseless accusation you have made against me. "The ideal way to expand topics on Wikipedia is to read multiple sources and summarize them for the reader." - yes, that is the ideal, however in reality you know perfectly well it is never like that. I started this article many years ago, saw this week that band members (most likely) had added new information and put "find some new sources" on my to-do list. Then rather than adding "citation needed" you reverted absolutely everything. I politely asked could you not do that, you reverted with "Rv... this is not Facebook or your website" - like I say, incredibly rude. So now there is unsourced incorrect information rather than unsourced correct information, great job there. I am going to go off and do some work to source this article, I will do a good job on it, and I will repeat as many times as I need to that your behaviour is unacceptable. It's people like you that stop new editors coming here. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Jill Stein's biography

I notice that you have recently taken issue with User:DMH223344's edits to Jill Stein, particularly with regard to the ample use of primary sources to deliver laudatory information. There is a disagreement between them and me, and I don't want to begin a revert war. If you take interest in helping to reach a concensus — Talk:Jill Stein § "Political positions" section seems like self-promotion. Thanks! Y. Dongchen (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Two questions

Hi Binksternet, I've got a question for you. This diff is a series of edits made on the Hoosiers article last month by what I believe to be an IP sockpuppet of User:Brettandelle. Does it look correct to you, or should I revert?

And while I'm at it, I wanted to ask this other question that I've had for a while now. Recently, I bought a CD copy of the album "Tribute" by John Newman. Something that's caught me by surprise is that some of the songs sound quite different than the videos I used to listen to on Youtube beforehand - for example, quite a number of the songs have a lower pitch on the CD album copy, and songs like 'Try' and 'Out Of My Head' have different instrumentation. Looking at the very Wikipedia articles for the songs that have non-identical copies, Out Of My Head has a 'John Newman rework' version, but Losing Sleep does not have any other versions that aren't remixes by other artists. So do you know why it would be the case that the song copies on Youtube would be a bit unalike to the original album songs? Mind you not all of them are dissimilar like this. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

First answer is yes, that's Brettandelle. I've reverted the article and massaged it into place. Brettandelle was adding bassist Leighton Allen but there has been no announcement. The band's website shows just two musicians, not three.

Regarding John Newman's tunes, let me look into it. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I was actually just asking whether the edit itself was correct and legitimate or not, rather than confirming if it's sockpuppetry. Anyways, thanks. What an awful LTA to deal with, should I just apply WP:BANREVERT to every suspected User:Brettandelle edit whether it looks good to me or not? — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

BANREVERT can certainly be applied for any change of content aside from, say, spelling corrections or such. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Advice/help regarding White Stripes pages

Hello again! So, despite it being discussed and reverted multiple times, users still come and edit the track listings of the White Stripes albums to exclude Meg. I don't know whether or not this is motivated by sexism or Meg hate or what, but across the board, and as seen on other articles of albums including featured ones, in my opinion it should be clarified that all lyrics were written by Jack unless otherwise noted, while the music was composed by Jack and Meg. This is the best way to ensure proper accrediting for both the band and each member involved. What do you suggest? Just ignore it and revert each time, watch the article, or perhaps leave notes? I don't know but it's a bit exhausting, I just figured I would ask you for advice since you helped me previously. Thank you! Watagwaan (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I asked RSound why they removed Meg. That's a start. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue changes over time, apparently. Early White Stripes albums credited the duo, later ones credit Jack. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I've got the vinyls for each of these records. How they have it credited is that all the lyrics were written by Jack unless noted, while the music has always been composed by the White Stripes (aka Jack and Meg White) so it would definitely still be appropriate to distinguish the two on all six albums. Watagwaan (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The liner notes of Get Behind Me Satan, for instance, don't credit Meg or the White Stripes as a duo. They just credit Jack. Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Got it! Watagwaan (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

"Tim Weed\" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tim Weed\ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 30 § Tim Weed\ until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

2A02:C7E:5C85:5500:9854:C24B:F38:A52

2A02:C7E:5C85:5500:9854:C24B:F38:A52 made a comeback on some of Del Shannon Album article by adding recording dates that are unsupported, he added them on Runaway with Del Shannon, & Hats Off to Del Shannon, but don't worry i gotta all covered Samchristie05 (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Whats unsupported recording dates stands for, BTW? @Binksternet Samchristie05 (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

When I write "unsupported recording date" in the edit summary window I mean that the recording date is not listed on the album liner notes, or it is not described in a book or magazine or online articles. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"Rachael Price"

Hello! I saw that the YoungArts alumnus link was removed from Rachael Price. However, YoungArts is a prestigious American arts competition for youth ages 15-18. It is worth mentioning and the YoungArts programme is mentioned on other famous celebrities pages like Timothee Chalamet. Coffeecloudy (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

If it's worth mentioning then WP:SECONDARY sources will indeed do so. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheers! There is nothing I could find on WP:SECONDARY online besides the YoungArts Our History section which mentions her involvement with the program. Coffeecloudy (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't find anything either for Rachael Price besides listings from the YoungArts group itself. That means the media don't consider it very important in terms of Price's life and career. Wikipedia exists to summarize the important points of a topic, which is why I have been removing many of your contributions. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

In the future, should I find other articles besides the YoungArts organization that mentions the organization's impact or solely add to the YoungArts wikipedia page? Sorry, I'm a bit confused since YoungArts as an organization/charity is crucial to young artists' development in providing guidance, scholarships and more. It has also been added to other celebrity pages with their citation being the YoungArts Winners pdf file. Not affiliated with YoungArts. Thanks for your clarification. Coffeecloudy (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, please find other publications that mention a YoungArts award given to an artist.

It doesn't matter whether you are affiliated with YoungArts or not. Your actions have served to promote YoungArts rather than summarize the literature about an artist; that's the whole point of WP:REFSPAM. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Coffeecloudy (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Sousa

So I was listening to my music collection this morning on shuffle and up came one of my favorites, "Left-Right". Followed three songs later by a Sousa march I'd never heard of called "Right-Left". Well I thought that was interesting. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ha! That's pretty good. Sometimes automatic shuffle makes human-seeming leaps. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Undoing every reversion you made

Greetings,

I have to inform you that you need to STOP making changes to whatever articles I made changes to. I change them because they have grammar errors, punctuation errors, and need more detail including links to different pages. I can see that you are trying to vandalize my reversions. PLEASE DO NOT change whatever changes I made or I will have to notify an administrator that you are trying to vandalize my edits.

Thank you 167.88.224.163 (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

For the record, you have also been editing with another Corona IP: Special:Contributions/104.33.147.194.

The first problem I see is that you have been linking common terms; see MOS:OVERLINK which says don't link countries. A music article doesn't need a link to Single (music).

You have also been getting the dash wrong between "Northern Irish" and "Scottish". It isn't Northern Irish-Scottish with a hyphen. Rather, it's Northern Irish–Scottish with an en dash. That's because Northern Irish is two words. See MOS:DASH, especially MOS:ENBETWEEN. A band that is Northern Irish–Scottish can easily be called a British band or a band from the UK; it doesn't always have to be the same style in every article that mentions Snow Patrol. There is no need for you to go around making every article the same. See WP:STYLEVAR. Make it look like humans write the encyclopedia, not a machine. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I understand a little bit. I think I'm going to remove the links for common terms. Is that okay? 167.88.224.163 (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Also, I am going to make a few changes of some articles, but I'll try not to add too many links. The reason I am doing this is because I need to fix some grammar errors, punctuation errors, and add links to pages that talk about some things that people might not know. If you think that some edits I did are wrong, please let me know and I'll try my best to fix them. 167.88.224.163 (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Also note: For the article, "The Lightning Strike", I checked Vimeo and found that the full sixteen-minute animated video for the song is available if you search for it. I think I am going to add that as well. 167.88.224.163 (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Check the article, The Lightning Strike to see what edits I made and to see if they are okay for you. If you think some of them are not okay for you, please let me know and I'll be sure to fix/delete them. 167.88.224.163 (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Remember, check the articles I edited to make sure that they are okay. If some edits are not okay for you or anyone else, PLEASE let me know and I'll be sure to fix/delete them. 104.33.147.194 (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

More likely I will fix stuff myself if I see a problem. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay. 104.33.147.194 (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Changes to Di-Dar - 2nd Opinion?

Hi. We don't interact much although you and I were once quite active patrolling Les Paul (thankfully quiet these days other than endless category changes).

I recently had a run-in with another editor over edits to Di-Dar, an album by HK artist Faye Wong. My impression was, and still is, that the editor was engaged in original research. But on the other hand I have not a ton of confidence the edit wasn't right in substance even if it was framed as a "what the secondary source says defines common sense" edit. Your name was invoked by @Dhoffryn which is why I think you'd be a good person to ask if this was a good revert.

Separately, the same editor has removed what looks like well-sourced information from Sammi Cheng, relating to some kind of a dispute she had with Faye Wong. I don't want to touch it for fear of antagonizing the other editor. I'm not complaining about her conduct, but not tagging either as I don't want to make things worse.

Would you mind having a look? I know everyone's time is costly on WP but this one in particular is a puzzle to me. My impression is the editor is a Sammi Cheng fan trying to burnish her image. Not bad faith but also not exactly being driven by verifiability alone. Of course, she thinks I'm a slavering Faye Wong fan (huge respect, but not really). Oblivy (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Lemme look at that after some sleep and then coffee. Binksternet (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I have no problem what happens with this edit - like I said here and at the talk page, this could have been a good call. I just feel like I left a new editor feeling chafed about how they got treated, and they are clearly not buying what I'm saying about BRD and consensus. Oblivy (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

IA bot

Can you please not run through all my contributions and just revert me running IA bot? Can you at least please explain to me why you’re mass reverting me? GraziePrego (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

What's the point of adding archive URLs for links that are still live? Those archive links will still be available if the source goes dead. You are adding extra traffic we don't need. There should be a name for going around fixing things that aren't broken. Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s creating an archive for when those links cease to function. Nothing wrong with doing that. Am I causing harm that I’m unaware of, and is there a specific guideline I’m transgressing?

Also, you managed to undo someone else’s blank/redirect of a page in your enthusiasm to undo my work, so I shall fix that presently. GraziePrego (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@GraziePrego: Since Binksternet mentioned me, I'll just slip a response in here to your it's creating an archive for when those links cease to function. The thing is, it's generally not. The archives are getting created automatically. It's an incredible useful service (one of many) by the Internet Archive. See the information about NoMore404 at Automatic archiving on the Link rot page. There's not a guidline (AFAIK), but adding massive amounts of unnecessary wikitext is annoying to many editors (including myself). Happy editing — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You might be interested to see that JohnFromPinckney has reverted some bot-assisted edits for the same reason I have.[8][9] A discussion was started at User_talk:FrozenIcicle#Archive_links, where you can see three editors asking FrozenIcicle to stop clogging the wiki when the links are still live. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

That is interesting, however I don't see it being a strict rule, rather something a couple of editors are strongly against. I should add that I myself have many times made use of archived links when the main link is still live. I do a lot of BLP editing of Australian political figures, and frequently it is the case that articles about them are paywalled. However, the archive has been a way of me bypassing that wall and viewing important content an unlimited amount of times. It was in fact critical to me achieving Monique Ryan as a GA, as several in-depth biographical articles were paywalled. The archive however let me access that as much as I liked. This was equally the case for several of my other GAs. So yes, there is absolutely a point to archiving links where the link is still live, and I myself have positively benefitted from that. GraziePrego (talk) 04:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I, too, have used archive.org to get past the paywall, so that's a good argument. But the bot doesn't differentiate between freely available pages and paywalled sites. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Tony Terran

You continue to revert FACTS that I add to the article about my dad (Tony Terran). I make occasional edits based on royalty statements I receive from recordings my dad played on. I would not be receiving these royalty/residual statements if my dad did not play on these recordings....I can prove that my dad played on these recordings through these official musician union residual reports and union contracts. Fans all over the world ask me whether my dad played on certain film and television soundtracks, songs, etc., and that's the main reason I try to keep this article updated. Yet you "think" you know the facts when I am the one with the official documentation about these recordings. I have also been in attendance at some of these legendary recording sessions. Why are you not respecting me as a legitimate source? I don't understand your power tripping, but it needs to stop! Daveterran (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Write your own book about it. Wikipedia cannot be your publishing platform. You have been warned about violating WP:No original research but you have not apparently taken it to heart. It's not debatable; it's hard policy. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Lavender's Blue, again!

Herostratus is making himself a pest, again, and at inordinate length, over at Lavender's Blue. If you have time, could you take a look at the Talk page? You're more knowledgeable than I... Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Help with IP users

Hello, could you help me dealing with some IP users who have been vandalizing and edit warring at the Harlequin (Lady Gaga album)? They have been making all sorts of unsourced changes and reverting my edits, ignoring all warnings to discuss the matter on the talk page. I’d appreciate if you could help me deal with this matter, I don’t want to engage in edit warring. Thanks. — Artmanha (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, never mind. Another user took the lead on said article. Thanks anyway. — Artmanha (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Rings Of Saturn

This is my credible source, shows all the blatant overdubbing he has done for that Rings Of Saturn album as well as mentioning that he didn't want to tour and was only in the studio, and that he has edited his drumming as well in that period. Hope this helps, I ain't a vandal, just someone who cares about the truth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRjqxTDIqQc 2001:1C07:194:A100:D4E:6A09:B293:ED92 (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You are linking to a video blog by drummer Mike Caputo. It doesn't seem reliable enough to me. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Right off the bat Caputo fails to factor in how a kick drum beater might appear motionless in a video if the beater is in the same position at every frame. It's like when a helicopter blade or airplane propeller appears to slow down, stop, or reverse direction because of video frame rate or film frame rate. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I know what you're getting at, but a kickdrum pedal doesn't even remotely reach these speeds, you can clearly see a moment where he's not even using the pedal anymore, because it loses speed moving and just stays motionless still. Then there's the part where he mentions the bell and ride cymbal and a snare into it, which just isn't possible, the man does not have 3 arms, and the way he's set-up doesn't make it possible, and it also says he was never a live member as he prefers studio and gave the live playing gig to Mike Caputo, and let's not forget he speeds up his drum videos. Why would you do that? insecurities? I guess so, and that's a valid point, but you didn't mention that, and the dude also removes comments that have valid criticisms on his playing, but I think you're a fan of Marco, and can't handle it when he's getting valid criticism, so you just can't handle your hero being a cheat. hard to swallow I get it, but that's the world man, sometimes your heroes don't play by the book. 2001:1C07:194:A100:D4E:6A09:B293:ED92 (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Ha! I couldn't give two shits about Marco. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Monkees

Regarding your recent changes to The Monkees page, please reword your change about the song "Shorty Blackwell". The song was more than simply "named after" his cat. The cat was clearly the inspiration for the song. "Another cat came in to stay/He's eating all my food", etc. Sm5574 (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I will do so if you don't do it first. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

List of best selling female rappers

Hi, could you pitch in with your opinion on this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_female_rappers I feel like I am not really reaching out to a certain user (Satellite Change) who uses poor sourcing of some blog like page AboutMusic for sourcing claimed sales. Page to me it does not seem reliable at all. So including it would be bad. And Vibe potentially using that page as a source is not good as well. Dhoffryn (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Taking a look now. Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree the aboutmusiccharts.com website looks like a self-published page. Their about page says it's a "passion project".[10] But the Vibe source is fine, and it has Iggy Azalea saying she sold 65 million units by August 2023. We might have to downgrade Iggy from 75 to 65 million. Certainly the claimed 100 million certifiedfor Cardi B is wrong as it includes streaming. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't you think 65 million is too much as well? She had only 2 singles that sold well and only one succesful album? Yahoo source was just plain weird where it claimed 50 million sales in albums alone. Dhoffryn (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly your mistake here

It would be a good idea to disengage before you get yourself blocked. If you really want to know the context from NPR in relation to the 2008 election issue per NPR:

I want to get to another point. We joked - earlier we joked about...

"do they feel downtrodden or - it's not that these guys, they've never - they're not trying to have victim status, and they don't feel downtrodden. Except by really, by the mid-'90s when we started talking about the angry white male, it's that they really came to a point culturally where they didn't want to be victims.

But they were sick of being blamed for the victimization of everybody else. But that doesn't mean there aren't real issues, and in 2008, as they really are, the key swing bloc, that's because they're the largest portion of independent voters, more than even white women. But really they've always been the key swing block for the last quarter century.

Le sigh... if you want to go off like a frog in a sock about something even NPR recognises is a phenomenological event you might want to try harder to actually be right about something rather than jumping around like a frog in a sock when you see an IP editor that doesn't use or edit Wikipedia frequently enough to care about whatever background issues you've got going on about self importance of these issues on your own page.

27.96.194.9 (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This edit of yours changing the meaning of my words is not a way to have a long, happy career on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

See the problem here in principle is the people involved agreed that you were the problem. It seems you want to make more of a nuisance out of things by attempting to dox me at the same time. The bad faith is already well and truly established with you.

Show me some good faith or go edit some place else please. 27.96.194.9 (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is doxing anybody here. Your two IP addresses show you to be located in central Queensland. That's just a fact. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Removed my edits

The information I added on the Lori Lieberman page was actually done because there seems to be a general misunderstanding of copyright law. Thus what remains without that added context is a seemingly biased account accusing the songwriters of wrongdoing which seemed unfair. I was trying to write as a neutral party, but may have written it imperfectly. I would welcome your corrections, and perhaps you could post a link to US copyright law to explain it better than I did. In copyright law, only the actual melody and lyrics are protected. Ideas for songs are not protected. …hope you will add that info on behalf of the truth. thank you. Bluefeathergirl (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Your first mistake is to explain copyright law after assuming that Lieberman did not write any of the lyrics. She contends that she wrote some of the lyrics on a cocktail napkin.

The two older male songwriters are accused of wrongdoing because of what they did in 1970, denying Lieberman writing credit and thus preventing her from making millions of dollars in royalties. Also because of the about-face the two men made in the late 1990s onward, dismissing Lieberman's inspiration for the song, which is easily proved by published accounts from the early 1970s. The two men were seen to be in CYA mode, trying to keep Lieberman from claiming millions. The only "unfair" happening here is Lieberman's experience. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

But it seems you are the one who is biased…you have taken “sides” instead of being neutral.

The inspiration for the song is not disputed - everyone acknowledges that Lieberman was deeply moved while watching McLean perform and even wrote her thoughts down. But there is an important distinction between having an inspiration and even scribbling an idea or a poem down on a napkin, and writing the actual lyric to the song.

By law, only the actual lyric is considered for copyright protection. Unless the words on that napkin (not the gist) are exactly the same as those in the song, they would not be considered part of the copyright.

It may seem unfair to you, but that is how the laws of copyright work.

If the specific words on the napkin in question were used in the song, they would absolutely be considered part of the copyright.

However, in her own words (quoted in the article you have referenced) you can see that her idea is very similar, but that the words are not the same as what ultimately became the final lyric as we all know it.

If they had been the same, I would have agreed with you, but they are not. And frankly, if there was a real case to be made at the time, I’m sure plenty of lawyers would have been thrilled to take the case pro bono for a percentage of those millions.

Anyway, I think this additional information is fair and relevant to the discussion and should be included in some form.

Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts - not opinion.

The facts as stated in that article are disputable and without the balance of context. Bluefeathergirl (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The Lieberman inspiration from Don McLean was indeed disputed by Fox after the mid-1990s, even though his own words from the 1970s proved him wrong.

Regarding your wish to describe copyright law, the hard Wikipedia policy of WP:No original research prevents it. Your analysis is not found in a published source, which means it cannot be presented to the reader. Wikipedia is intended to be a summary of published thought, not a platform for brand new analysis.

And you still don't have proof that the cocktail napkin text by Lieberman is entirely absent from the song, which is the basis of your stance. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, inspiration one way or another is not relevant to copyright law. This is stated/published on the library of Congress’s website.

With no actual napkin to show the whole text, there is no way to prove Lieberman has the right to claim any ownership of the finished lyric.

The piece of what she wrote that day that she herself quotes on her own website is shown to be not the same as the song’s lyric:

She says she wrote “I felt like everyone was looking at me, like he was reading pages from my diary.”

which although similar in concept, is not what the song’s lyric says, which is, “I felt all flushed with fever, embarrassed by the crowd. I felt he found my letters and read each one out loud”

That is the difference between an idea and a finished lyric.

And only the finished lyric is protected under copyright.

One cannot copyright an idea.

That fact and more about copyright protection (that melody and lyrics only, and not an idea can be copyrighted in a song’s creation) is published on the library of congress’ website. I just don’t know the proper way to add it on the page so it would be acceptable- how do I show the source of something published on a website? Bluefeathergirl (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You are proposing to violate the WP:SYNTH guideline, by synthesizing a new idea from disparate sources. If the Library of Congress, or any expert in copyright law, published analysis saying that Lieberman was never a candidate for songwriting credit, then you could quote that work. Instead, you are looking to make the connection yourself, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Outside of Wikipedia such connections made by writers are common and even praised, but inside Wikipedia they are not allowed. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Then I don’t understand how a claim can be made with no proof, but to refute it with proof is not allowed. There is no napkin to prove that Lieberman either contributed or did not contribute to the song, and yet this page has decided she deserves millions of dollars because she says it was her idea.

And the fact that an idea is not copyrightable is irrelevant? And it’s ok to use a Wikipedia page to defame the actual writers of the song?

it’s really frustrating and kind of infuriating. Why not take down the unprovable content then?

and what about her actual words not being the words in the actual song?

How does one correct anything on the site then? Bluefeathergirl (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The position of Lieberman doesn't need to be corrected. Her position has been documented by several publications with in-depth exposés, for instance by the HuffPost UK which says she read her cocktail napkin poem over the phone to Gimbel. Gimbel used her words to some unknown degree. Another strong source is a WaPo article by Geoff Edgers. Edgers also says that Lieberman gave her poem to Gimbel, and Edgers emphasizes how Lieberman was given a very poor deal by her managers. Because of the published works laying out Lieberman's position, the public is under the impression that she got royally screwed. That's the mainstream viewpoint now. None of us know how much of Lieberman's poem is actually in the song, but the mainstream media believe it is significant. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

My point was and is that unless any of the actual words of the poem she read to Gimbel were used in the actual lyric, she would not be considered a writer of the song by industry standards and law.

That is just the bottom line hard truth, but is stated nowhere in the article, so the article appears biased.

But if I am understanding correctly, because 2 articles (one from HuffPo!) say she is entitled to co-ownership because it was her idea, misunderstandings and half-truths can become fact, and then public opinion matters more than what is actually true.

And additionally, unless someone someday cites a published article that explains ideas are not copyrightable to refute the misrepresentation of the first articles, the misrepresentation will stand.

I don’t have a dog in the fight or more time for this, so i will (probably) let go, but I think it’s a sad state of affairs in this era of fake news that even Wikipedia can be misused in that way.

I do feel bad for her, though, because her idea was turned into a song that did well, and she feels she did not benefit. Sadly for her, the idea is not the song, and so she would not be entitled to the millions anyway, but I can sympathize. It must feel awful to believe in your heart that you should have gotten that big payout.

At least the deal they got her with Capitol records and the 4 albums she made with them helped launch what appears to be a long and respectable career in music. She is obviously very talented. Bluefeathergirl (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You are continuing to hold the position that none of the words from her poem made it to the song lyric. That position cannot be proven with the available information. The media believes it's more likely that some of it is in there.

For many decades, people in the music industry have played fast and loose with songwriting credits. Lots of deals were made putting non-songwriter names into the credits. Influential DJ Alan Freed was given songwriting credit several times just so that he would promote a song written by others. Moog composer Edd Kalehoff was denied composer credits for his theme to The Price Is Right TV game show—that credit was assigned to Sheila Cole Israel, the wife of Kalehoff's boss Bob Israel. This falsehood robbed Kalehoff of millions.

The world of everyone following the copyright rules to the letter does not exist. The media are left to sort out fact from fiction. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I am continuing to hold the position that no one actually knows whether any of the actual words from the poem made it into the song, including the writers of those articles. It can not possibly be settled either way without proof, no matter what people’s feelings on the matter (including yours) are. It is not enough to just say it’s “believed to be true”.

It is my personal opinion that an already successful and established lyricist like Norman Gimbel would not need to use any of the poem. I find it far more believable that he could write a better lyric without using any of it.

But that is just my opinion as well. It cannot be proven either way without the existence of the actual poem in question no matter how many opinion pieces are written about it.

the Wikipedia page should not be ruled by beliefs and opinions, but by facts.

PS all the other music business abuses of power you mentioned are irrelevant to this argument…they prove nothing and are only support your feelings/opinion in this case.

PPS The media is not the law.

And the media can also get it wrong sometimes. Bluefeathergirl (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Presidency of Jimmy Carter

Hi Binksternet. I believe that you left a message for me, concerning an edit which I made to the page concerning the presidency of Jimmy Carter, specifically the foreign policy of the Carter Administration in relation to South Korea. You claimed that my edit was 'less than neutral.' You may have misconstrued the intent of the material which I inserted. I am neither American nor Korean, and I have a very positive attitude personally towards Jimmy Carter - in particular his patronage of Capricorn Records. Thus, I have no personal desire to discredit one of the most progressive Presidencies on the domestic front in your nation's history.

However, the summary of the foreign policy of the Carter Administration (as opposed to Jimmy Carter himself as an individual) is lacking fundamental details in the summary. By simply not mentioning the knowledge that US officials, military intelligence, and the White House had and the military assistance given prior to the Gwangju Uprising and massacre, the article is already, as you describe, 'less than neutral' - by act of omission. To rectify this omission, I imported a few passages in summary from the existing Wikipedia page on the Gwangju Uprising, with its citations, as is. I wrote none of the statements personally. In fact, I removed one which made an uncited conclusion. In no part of the summary is it claimed that Jimmy Carter, his staff, or US forces (beyond those members of the 501st Intelligence who were embedded in the Korean forces and were unwilling witnesses to the events) were directly involved in the acts which took place, nor understood exactly the intentions of the Chun regime. However, it is necessary to record the actions and reactions which they did take which have been verified in the historical record and are clearly cited. Amongst those action, as written, were the efforts made by the Carter Administration to have the sentence of Kim Dae-jung commuted.

Thus, perhaps, you might like to attempt to make an edit which summarised the key points more succinctly. I understand that the 'Presidency of Jimmy Carter' page serves as a general summary to which links to more detailed pages can be made, but if such a link is made, it is necessary to summarise enough detail about the nature and import of the events that readers can recognise why they should visit that link. This is done over several paragraphs for the other foreign policy events which occurred during the administration; a single paragraph on South Korea which fails to mention either the response of the administration to the coup of Chun Doo-hwan or the Gwangju Uprising is, in my view, insufficient and obscures a significant point in that summary, leaving it incomplete and inaccurate. Thank you for taking the time to read this explanation, and I wish you good luck with your edit. 2A02:C7C:7B65:5000:78FB:5E8C:9EE8:8B4A (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your addition because it was far too much about one incident with very little to connect the narrative to Carter himself. I cited WP:COATRACK as my reason, but WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV are relevant. Your restoration of that text was reverted by someone else who felt the same way I did. Now the WP:ONUS is on you to create a talk page discussion about your text for the purpose of building consensus to include it. Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Boz Scaggs - not a yacht rock artist?

Hello Blinksternet, I had noticed that the yacht rock genre on Boz Scaggs' page was previously taken out of the genre tag, so I had inserted it back in. But now, when I went to check the page, the genre was removed again. Could I be mistaken? Is Boz not in the yacht rock genre or am I inserting too much info about him? The last time I did research, it said that he is a yacht rock artist, so I just need to be sure of this. Thank you in advance. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The concept of Yacht rock is not really a musical genre. It's a recent construction explaining how a bunch of soft rock artists were making similar music. The term itself is derogatory.

You did not cite a bunch of sources calling Boz a yacht rock artist. Since we are summarizing sources, you would need a bunch of sources to add something about yacht rock in his biography. And whatever you add would be down in the article body, not in the infobox at the top. It would be something like "Scaggs was listed as a yacht rock artist by A, B, C and XYZ." Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I see. You're definitely right about the sourcing, I did not do a good job there. I'll work on that. In the meantime, it is worth noting that many others have questioned this term, whether it is an actual genre, a broad term for multiple genres (including soft rock), or just a popular style of music, especially on the radio. I think everyone should really think on that. But then again, other than that, thank you very much for the advice. I will definitely be more careful next time when editing. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

A fox for you!

Thanks for your continuous effort to identify socks of the user who always changes genres in music articles and assisting admins in convincing they are definite socks. I've chosen this photo since BST ends early tomorrow.

Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers... Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Why not go the whole hog and have a wolf [11]! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I would howl for that brew. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens now?

Genuinely asking, in regards to Islam in Australia.

How does Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle look like for you? And how can we achieve that on a page that has rare editor visitors and a long history of Islamophobia which you have reintroduced in your back up reversion? Bro The Man (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Help! (Film)

You actually put back a revision with a few errors. I mean no disrespect. 68.193.160.90 (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus achieved: Islam in Australia.

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

• Infringement: Violating consensus outcome achieved on Talk:Islam in Australia. Your current actions are within the same topic of original disagreement — therefore covered by the established consensus and resolution outcomes.
• diff: Talk:Islam in Australia#Bloated lead section
• Next action: Repairing disruptive edit and body text.
• Recommending action for user:
  • See discussion thread in: Talk:Islam in Australia#Re: Consensus on Islam's presence in Pre-Europen arrival Australia.
  • Review the outcome summary in: Talk:Islam in Australia#Bloated lead section
• Acknowledgements:
  • Your first position was: " Don't add "oldest". That's all I'm asking. "
  • However that has since changed to: " Stop trying to establish Islam in Australia as coming before Christianity. "
    • Reminder: No reference or comparison has been made between the arrival of Christianity or Islam. Buddhism, Indonesian paganism, and Polynesian paganism contact both predate Abrahamic religions. Per talk discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bro_The_Man#October_2024
  • Only discussion of Muslim early contact and cultural exchange. This is a matter of popular social consensus between academia and the Australian government.

Reminders:

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

f you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bro The Man (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Islam in Australia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
his is a second Caution. Do not continue to revert the article. If you do not agree, please discuss in the article talk page. If you would like to make changes on matters covered by a dispute, please do so in the relevant talk page discussion threads. Bro The Man (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Binksternet. We have achieved a consensus. I would like to bring your attention to the talk page. Bro The Man (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

polite ping

Islam in Australia Bro The Man (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

i was in the middle of editing. what are you doing? Bro The Man (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

deleted my progress Bro The Man (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't add "oldest". That's all I'm asking. You can edit your words without hitting the Publish button. Try the Preview button until you like what you see. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

[In good faith. Not a hostile space, nor a safe space. Honest moderated by accountability.]

'oldest'? If that's the case, then discussion should've ended at this proposal but it didn't. It doesn't feel fair.

• Islam is Australia's second-largest religion and has influenced aboriginal culture via Makassar traders, speculated to have arrived 500 years ago, if not more. Predating European arrival by 300 years. It also represents 183 nationalities, as one of Australia's most diverse religions.

new line

Yes, I would've liked you to be the one who taught me that. Everything that I learned in our exchanges was in opposition to you, it didn't feel collaborative. I didn't feel like a peer, I read your words as showing the minimum tolerance. Tolerance is restrained disrespect.

Before going on, I would like to apologies if I said anything to you, that you would have felt hurt by. My conduct is my responsibility.

Our exchange could have been so readily and easily, an ordinary and informative experience. It could have been. You know how to do so. You've got the rights and privileges that you have because you're trusted to be discerning and communicate appropriately.

For how I perceive you, the onus lies first on you. Only after, it falls on me. It's objectively easy to simply present yourself in a way that elicits people's appreciation. Kindness/Politeness creates continuous reconciliation opportunities, more importantly its an obligation, as it is the means of respect. We all seek positivity.

During the exchange:

• did not ask a question
• did not teach me anything
• did not propose anything of your own
• had overall antagonistic tone ( you vs me // guilty until innocent)
• condescending on multiple occasions, e.g. it even reflects in the comments of your edits in talk:islam in aus
• it's supposed to be us-vs-problem.
• all this is disrespect and it hurt.

The only time I thought we were having a positive discussion and you were explaining how and why and where i can improve....... you dropped this absolutely vile thing. I hate this comment. It makes me livid. I don't even think you understand what you've said and how terribly *(@&^#(&@[loss of words exclamation]%#^(%@%@ maddening it is. It disgusts me.

• You are jumping several steps ahead in the process. The first thing you must do per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS is to start a discussion at Talk:Islam in Australia and explain your position, asking other editors for support, to build a consensus for inclusion of disputed text. Be sure to explain which source discuss beheaded pigs, urination inside mosques, and how Muslims in Australia "are self-aware of these cross-sections and hold them proudly as enriching characteristics of equal importance".
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bro_The_Man&diff=prev&oldid=1253091497

[ insert nth WP:shortcut regarding respect, civility, etiquette, and conduct — I'm sure you're already aware of]

For me, the above is reportable, but I don't know how to do so nor would I know how to communicate my case without littering it with NPOV violations.

My first reply to you was polite and welcoming, this was the very first reply you posted to me after a comment I made addressing you. And here's your second:

• Your supporting cites should be placed directly after the relevant text, not before. The bit about a beheaded pig and urine are listed in your source as rare and unusual. They should not be listed in the article per WP:WEIGHT. You are misrepresenting the source by emphasizing a minor point.

You are only required to do one thing, of all people, you should know how to do this: express sensitivity appropriately.

These remarks too, were problematic: (not being ironic. this is real)

• A religion that "reached the shores" by way of seafaring nomads is not a religion that settled on the land.
  • 16/10 bad: I don't think you understand how dehumanising this is
  • reached the shores: diminishing and relegating their actions, history, and value as qualified humans worthy of recognition.
  • seafaring nomads: used both as a noun:makassar and adverb:therefore-negative-quality.
• The seagoing nomadic Makassars don't count..
  • 12/10 bad: you're listing identities as adverbs of consecutive cons.
  • why? nobody talks about people like this

This framing is demeaning, even more within context. It can be interpreted as dog whistling, but that's not your intention here, but I am making you aware – that is possible here. Again, why quotation marks? I don't understand. If it is sarcasm, in this context that would be to belittle the history of a People; peaceful too, mind you. How is that appropriate? In anyway, we are two stranger dissenting mid discussion, sarcasm is ugly, childish, and needlessly annoying. Also where did nomad come from? I searched and found no reference for that. How and why you came to that assumed conclusion .... what's the train of thought?

Names are names. Names are titles. For People-nations, or any people groups, names are names/titles and are important demanding regard. Respecting people is an axiomatic belief. And to respect them, is to follow a custom of respect defined on their terms. And if someone were to bargain those terms, they're bargaining respect. To bargain is to objectify, this is dehumanising. That's a practice with a morbid history (not a joke or an ironic remark: human to human — don't dehumanise or bargain respect on your own terms). I don't know how to explain why caring and watching one's language when talking about people should matter, beyond that it does. It's simply a moral axiom (axiological ethics).

Unless using favouring–language, then you should never use adverbs directly before the name of anyone, it's how objects are described, and People aren't objects. And don't talk about people simply with adverbs, that's beyond dehumanising and blatantly a violation, both morally plus the thousand other WP: Code of Conduct policies.

Style guide: Simply just prioritise names.

• Incorrect style: adverb--adverb--Name
• correct style: The Makassar seagoing nomads || Name-adverb-adverb
• correct style : The Makassars are nomadic seagoers || Name-- attribution -- characteristics
• correct style : The seagoing nomadic people of Makassar || characteristics -- "people"-- attribution -- Name

You can still kill trolls with kindness, but more importantly, it keeps the right people around without losing them. And maintains your own standing. When someone disrespects others, they disrespect themselves by carrying out that ugly behaviour.

What happens next ... nothing. I'm not going to do anything. I'm moving on. I hope you can acknowledge that I'm being genuine and take on what I have to say with self reflection; even if there's something that you don't understand, or agree with for the moment, you'll take some pause. You'll do so because your peer brought a grievance to you and you care about how your peer thinks & feels both: in general, and their regard for you as you want them to regard you well; because you value them and their opinion.

Or not. stay the same and dismiss all the above. double thumbs up.

Good luck, and happy editing. Bro The Man (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

My first contact with your work was this series of edits which added a bunch of text promoting Islam. You were positioning yourself as an activist for Islam rather than a neutral Wikipedia editor. For instance, your addition included an irrelevant paragraph about how Muslims invented science and helped Europe reach its Renaissance. None of that happened in Australia, which is the topic location. You added this bit of puffery (bolding in the original): "They are self-aware of these cross-sections and hold them proudly as enriching characteristics of equal importance." This is egregious promotion. You also removed any mention of Sydney gang rapes which put Muslims in a negative light, and you added excessive negative text aimed at one anti-Islam terrorist named Mavros. You concluded in your own voice, "Ultimately, Australians of all faiths were universally left wondering as to why the authorities have not acted sooner." This is pure activism, not neutral Wikipedia editing. All this and more crossed my mind in reverting your text, and it colored my tone when addressing you. I have not seen the kind of correction in your actions which would validate you as a neutral editor. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I am responsible for what I say. Article talk page was always available.

You are responsible for yourself, with no deferment. Good luck. Bro The Man (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Potential edit war on Batushka

Hi, I'm reaching to you in order to put the article of Batushka in semiprotection. After the ruling that granted Krzysztof Drabikowski the rights of the name Batushka, there are people that are fans of (or they are closer to) Bartek Krysiuk's band and they're interested in turning it into an article for his band Patriarkh. I'm suspecting user 70.65.218.159's edits are part of this effort, despite Krysiuk is not the legal owner of the name Batushka. Also the article can benefit from a temporary protection until Krysiuk's band change of name is complete and a rewrite of the article can be made. Thank you very much. Grojasp44 (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I cannot protect articles. Binksternet (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Grojasp44: FYI, go to WP:Requests for page protection to request protection for an article. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Georgi Ivanov (footballer, born 1976)

I know Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Demographics vandal etc. etc. etc. but what exactly was the issue at Georgi Ivanov (footballer, born 1976)? The article has a sourced statement indicating that this person is of Romani descent, so why shouldn't he be included in Category:Bulgarian people of Romani descent? Despite whatever backstory IP had going on, those edits seem perfectly uncontroversial to me...

I just saw the listings when I went to add a page at WP:RFPP and was just curious. RachelTensions (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't examine the edits to see whether they were valid. Instead, I reverted all edits per WP:BANREVERT. I could have paused to see which edits were helpful to the wiki but one of my goals was to indicate to this user the pointlessness of evading their many blocks. Binksternet (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 222, October 2024

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Army divisions in the Pacific War, Nick-D on the First Indochina War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Year correction

Thanks for catching and correcting my mistake on the year of Genesis's first concert at John Mayhew (musician). I just wasn't paying attention to what I was typing there, I guess. Martin IIIa (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Editing trouble

Hello. I don't understand what did I do wrong on my last edit on Jaska Raatikainen. Can you give me an explication? Loyal to Metal (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You added influences with no references. Binksternet (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Greenwood

Hi, Could you please explain why you remove my edit? Rabbitsforever (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

KB edit

Hi! I noticed that you reverted my edits for the wiki page of Kathryn Bernardo. I overhauled the whole page as there are too many unnecessary info and clutter. I also corrected a lot of grammatical errors which I think devalues the page.

If you will compare my edit from the previous one, it is a big improvement as it is more coherent and concise. I also added present vital info as there are a lot that has been missed. If I may, I will revert my edits on that page as it took me hours to finish it. Rest assured that no critical info has been removed. Thank you. Itslouagain (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Whatever improvements you have planned for the biography, don't remove existing citations. The biography is supposed to be a summary of published material, and the citations represent that material. Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I will restore the sources on the previous edit. Thanks. Itslouagain (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Can I revert back my edit and restore back the sources previously present? I want to avoid edit warring so I'll ask for your permission. Itslouagain (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You can copy the article into your userspace and work on it there. Your userspace sandbox would be at User:Itslouagain/sandbox. Binksternet (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This is noted. All citations previously removed were restored. Page now grew to 77 references. Thanks. Itslouagain (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping so many of the previous citations. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Please add "progressive soul" back to the Isley Brothers article

Source 166.181.255.91 (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the source you linked, but they say the group "dabbled" in it, which is not a wholehearted assertion of genre.

In any case, the genre "progressive soul" must be discussed in the article body before it can be listed in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Then add it to the body. 166.181.255.91 (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Robert Christgau also referred to the Isleys as a progressive soul group in the 1970s. 166.181.255.91 (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)