User talk:Binksternet/Archive36

About changes on the pages of Martin Garrix

Hello, I made these changes for reasons such as: The songs released, the remixes are the same as in the artist discography but I removed the "Unreleased" in the artist page but I kept it in the discography. DOORN, artist influences, records singles and genres are asked to leave for a good reason. Why you removed the recorded and genre of all songs. The Martin Garrix's album "+x" is release this year. Timothe8872 (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Anything that you want to put into Wikipedia must have been published in a reliable source such as a magazine, newspaper, book, or established website. Wikipedia cannot be the first publication. So you must show a publication of this information. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

About changes on the Sini Anderson page

Hello, all of the work I posted on the Sini Anderson Wikipedia page has been deleted and i don't know why. Besides quotes that i cited from sources WITH the source links, there is not one plagiarized sentence. Please help me, as I am a college scholar doing a research assignment in which i conduct my own research about a director and add to her Wiki page. I have done thorough research on Anderson and everything I posted is factual. Thank you. Maggiefrank (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)maggiefrank

(talk page watcher) @Maggiefrank: Wikipedia does not accept original search. this is most likely the reason for the deletion. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Maggiefrank, let's start with me saying that I respect Sini Anderson and I like her film The Punk Singer. I saw Anderson introduce the film at my neighborhood theatre in Oakland and the experience spurred me to create the article The Punk Singer. So I'm friendly to the topic.

However, the big problem I saw was that you copied text from your sources.

There are other problems such as your multiple incomplete sentences, your inclusion of unimportant information about where Anderson has appeared to present the film, and your emphasis on her dancing, spoken word performance and poetry when the world knows her best for directing the documentary. (She's not famous for dancing, and not nearly as famous for poetry.) You wrote that Anderson has been sober for 9 years but the source says she has been sober for 8, showing that you assumed she has been sober for the year following the interview. You used this source to support the assertion that Anderson "currently splits her time between" L.A. and Brooklyn, but the source says nothing about that, and the source is from 2001 so it could not be current. You used this source to say that Anderson's next film will be ready in 2016, but the source does not estimate any time of completion.

But the copyright violations were the most serious of problems. You wrote:

...picked up by IFC films for distribution in 2013 and released theatrically in 73 cities across America from 2013 to 2014.

The source says:

...picked up for distribution by IFC Films. The film was released theatrically in 2013/2014 in 73 American cities.

You wrote

Has won numerous awards such as POV’s "Humanitarian Award in Media", the Seattle International Film Festival's "Lena Sharpe Aware for Persistence of Vision, Women in Cinema", Mexico City's Distrital International Film Festival's "Best First Feature Director" and "ARCA Best Director Award", and Barcelona’s BEEFEATER IN-EDIT Festival Internacional De Cine Documental's "Best International Music Documentary Director".

The source says:

has won several awards for the film including Seattle International Film Festivals Lena Sharpe Award For Persistence Of Vision, Women in Cinema. Mexico Cities, Distrital International Film Festivals, ARCA Best Director Award, First Feature. Barcelona’s BEEFEATER IN-EDIT, Festival Internacional De Cine Documental Best International Music Documentary Director, and in 2014 Anderson was awarded POV’s Humanitarian Award in Media at their 40th annual awards ceremony in Los Angeles, CA.

So with all the above problems, I did not think the rest of your work should be assumed good. That's why I removed it. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Charli XCX

Hello Binksternet, could you explain in a little more detail about your issues with the section you're removing from Sucker please? I see you cited WP:TONE, but I'm not sure what aspect you mean, you were a little vague, could you go into further detail? Thanks, Azealia911 _talk 13:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Your text is not neutral; it quotes Charli's angry tweets when it should summarize Charli's overall message. However, the primary sources you used do not lend themselves to summary. This bit should be based on WP:SECONDARY sources to show that it was significant. Primary sources fail to show significance. Binksternet (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Consolidated B-24 Liberator

Keep an eye on this article, I have a suspicion that the recent, massive edits are all copy-viols. I had done some checks on exact wording and found where the sources came from, all unattributed. Quite a few typos and spelling variations were also involved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Right-o. I'll keep the possibility of copyvio in mind. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Covers of songs by a musician who has no Wikipedia biography

I am not disruptive editing. Wikipedia is a reference work to educate and inform and it is a completely valid entry to include the tracks on this album when they have been released specifically for the gay community, especially where mainstream music for a gay audience is almost absent. The references to the released covers of these songs are not intended to promote anything, they are intended to show that these tracks have been openly recorded for a gay audience in a 2008 album, something which is of notable social importance. There is no commentary on the work, no promotion of the work, no external links, no adjectives of any kind, simply a reference that the work was recorded and released in the public domain in 2008. The artist is not notable but the fact these songs were done for a gay audience is. Taurusthecat (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia is not a record of everything that exists. It is instead a summary of the important and significant things. Showing that a musical product exists does not satisfy the requirement that it be important, significant or "notable", per WP:Notability. So Wilshier needs to have been written up in magazines, newspapers, books, etc., and it would help quite a lot if a biography was written about him, a well-referenced biography that can stand against attempts at deletion.

Secondly, the guideline at WP:SONGCOVER greatly limits the kinds of cover songs that can be listed. Did Wilshier gain wide public notice with one of the songs? If so, that one cover song can be listed, while the others cannot.

Finally, you are the only person who has been putting Wilshier into the encyclopedia, so it appears that you are promoting him. Promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

A little help, kind sir?

I need to warn a particularly annoying genre warrior about what they're doing, as he/she never has been warned before. He/She repeatedly adds funk rock to the Nickelback song "She Keeps Me Up," which has been challenged (by me) because of no sources and a possibly inaccurate description. I have seen you send warning messages, but they all appear to be the same message. Is there a literal automated code that makes that message in which I could put on his/her page? DannyMusicEditor (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You have overstated the case, as this change to funk rock was only made once, by an editor who only touched that article once. So it's not "repeatedly". However, the editor is making other unreferenced or unsupported changes to genres on other songs, so a warning is perfectly appropriate. As seen at Template:Uw-genre1, here are the warnings for genre warriors, escalating in tone:

• {{subst:uw-genre1}} ~~~~
• {{subst:uw-genre2}} ~~~~
• {{subst:uw-genre3}} ~~~~
• {{subst:uw-genre4}} ~~~~

These templates can also contain the article name, and they can contain some extra text if you want. This is done by copying the following and substituting the proper article name and the desired message:

• {{subst:uw-genre1|article name|additional message}} ~~~~

You would typically use the level 1 warning for a new user, then ramp up one more level for each new session of disruption. You can also jump straight to a higher level warning if the user is making a larger disruption. The level 4 warning is supposed to be the last warning before blocking. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The reason I say repeatedly is because the user has violated policy on not only this Nickelback song, but on others as well, such as "Million Miles an Hour." See, he added hard rock again. Now I'm gonna revert it. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment on AfD

Hey Bink, would you mind to leave a comment or vote at the AfD discussion I've recently opened? Appreciate the input.--Retrohead (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how to reply to the "John I Leanard" edit I was attempting to add.

I have no idea how to reply to the "John I Leanard" edit I was attempting to add. so I'll try it here...

I have simply tried to add myself to the "John I Leanard" notable alumni. Pam Rose said they had my video playing at the HS reunion - I couldn't attend because I was touring.

I was thinking "maybe this isn't 'notable' enough to have an article on wikipedia", but I noticed that the blocker of my edit is "only" a sound engineer, so if HE has a page, surely *I* shauld. Pam recommended it, so I attempted to add it. Normally, I only edit METRIC additions, as wixi seems to love the King (Imperial) as it's US-based.

Again, that's all I was attempting to do. Since I've played with many famous bands, I thought it may deserve a mention.

-)

MC_Squared@partycentral.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.211.187 (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Prehispanic Metal

Hi, you have undone my revision last night after I undid the revision that removed the whole "prehispanic metal" section on Folk_metal article. Can you explain why before we start an edition war ? The guy who first removed that section only wrote "unsourced section". In this case, is it not better to either add "source ?" tag if the text is correct but lacks source, or remove the text and add a "this section is incomplete, please help" banner if the text is obviously bad ? Completely removing the section as if prehispanic metal never existed is vandalism/censor ihmo. You are just removing knowledge from Wikipedia. I've done some research about the genre yesterday and was puzzled to see that the section I saw years ago disappeared from Wikipedia. The genre exists and is very large, ranging from black folk metal and death folk metal to power folk metal. If you need to add sources to the existing text before putting it back, here are a few links (I don't know how to add them as sources or where exactly they are relevant) => http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/world/americas/headbanging-in-bolivia-to-the-flutes-of-yore.html?_r=0 / http://www.metalunderground.com/news/details.cfm?newsid=67972 / http://www.metalstorm.net/forum/topic.php?topic_id=17234. Also, bands that were listed in the text you removed are easy to find on google/youtube. Keorl (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed the section because of the policy WP:No original research. Of the links that you posted above, only one of them calls this type of music "pre-hispanic", and that source is unreliable because the person signed as "sonictherapy", so there's no way of knowing what kind of authority and knowledge this person has on the subject. You called the sub-genre "pre-hispanic metal" but sonictherapy called it "pre-hispanic folk metal", so you are already making it different. The other sources do not call this genre anything except metal with folkloric influences. So there's not enough written about the sub-genre for Wikipedia to mention it. It should be well-established, with lots written about it in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Covers issues

This discussion is a good example of problems encountered while trying to apply WP:SONGCOVER. It seems that whatever attempt there is to establish boundaries, someone will come along with "It's in my collection/recollection, I'll have to add it". The editors are encouraged by other articles that have seemingly random covers lists and may be working in concert ("more like what we'd like this to be", "what we are dealing with here"). SONGCOVER is flawed, but its application may lead to more awareness (and discussion/improvement). —Ojorojo (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a great example of the difficulty in carrying out the high standard of WP:SONGCOVER. I have placed that song article on my watchlist in case the discussion continues. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Another good example. The editors are simply not getting it. How could SONGCOVER be explained better? Should I request a RFC for that song article? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Michael Jackson...?

Didn't Michael Jackson start off as a soul/R&B singer and then moved onto other genres such as pop, rock, new jack swing, disco later on in his career? UKoXYgen (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The Jackson 5 was strictly soul in their early days. I don't see any biographies of Michael Jackson describing him as a soul singer, or soul songwriter. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hiroshima cenotaph

Hi,

you're literally arguing that "third party observers" are a better authority on what the author of a statement means than the author himself is. I suppose I can interpret every claim that you have ever made better than you can, then? Whatever. However, in addition, the statement you are restoring is not actually cited as you claim. Instead, it's a very ordinary case of Original Research, where a general claim is sourced, but its application to the specific case is the editor's own contribution - an WP:Original synthesis. The cited book does contain several pages on the role of ambiguity in Japanese culture, but no mention of the Hiroshima cenotaph inscription and no claim that it is supposed to be ambiguous (it's on Google Books and the cited pages happen to be available for viewing). In other words, the "third party" on whose authority this interpretation relies is the editor who wrote this sentence.

Greetings,--91.148.130.233 (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers WP:SECONDARY sources (third party sources) to primary ones, if they exist. Thanks for looking into the previous editors' shortcomings to find a violation of WP:No original research. Best... Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned at WP:AE

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Roscelese where your name has been mentioned. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comment on EdJohnston's talk page

I would like to add; Binksternet to not get me involved and I saw that genre war you and the IP was having on the Kelis album "Food" page and I reported it; if you've got a problem with me doing that then tell me directly and not do the dirty later on up here, thank you and I would also like nothing to do with you ever again; any of the pages YOU edit I'LL leave alone and vice versa; many thanks UKoXYgen (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Pistolplay

Can you keep an eye on user if s/he would continues add unreliable or improperly sources. 115.164.217.16 (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits

Please stop reverting my edits they are good faith edits talk whith me please instead of avoiding them I know may about electronic music and I also can help I don't consider that my editions are vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andresbfarrera (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Switched-On Rock

Harrias ^talk 20:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Andresbfarrera

Hello there! I note that you have noted the return of Andrewbf. His persistent citing of the Fairfax media article for the "electro" claim at the House Music page is rather wearing as the article is written by a provincial journalist and is not an acceptable resource for inserting a whole genre into the "stylistic origins" section. I have left the genre listed (I'm uncertain of its validity) but removed the citation. I will advise this disruptive editor to find a more dependable source.

(Etheldavis (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC))

He really wants to edit Wikipedia but his English skills are not good enough to ferret out the fine meaning of musical genre terms. Thus we have a competence problem that has little chance of improving with a person who believes so strongly that he is right, and is more than willing to edit war for his position rather than ask for help.

I have added him to the Andrewbf sockpuppet investigation page, FYI. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Once again, s/he disruptive editing, especially She Wolf (Falling to Pieces). 115.164.219.201 (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet though I talk spanish I consider that I have experimented english skills enough to edit music genre and my object isn't vandalize wikipedia and I'm not a sockpuppet and if you think I'm wrong in one of my edits please notice me leaving a message in my talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andresbfarrera (talk • contribs) 03:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This reply shows your English skills to be insufficient. Binksternet (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There's some of pages that s/he undid again (though has been blocked by an admin). 115.164.54.159 (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The Beatles and the Bee Gees

If Paul McCartney isn't known as a guitarist, why do his notable instruments include Gibson Les Paul and Epiphone Casino these "two electric guitars"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunyin&kinwa (talk • contribs) 07:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Moreover, the Beatles were proficient instrumentalists, why can't "musician" be added to their occupations? Still, Robin Gibb is less known as an instrumentalist, why do his instruments played contain "keyboards" and "guitar"?

What motivates you to create so many sockpuppets, Chowkatsun9? Binksternet (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Faith No More

Dear Michael Knowles, I see you are having trouble with a maverick user Deadwords on the rock band's article Faith No More and you reported him on the administration board of Wikipedia. I am hoping you'll get resolution. I see you have great experience, probably greater than my 15 years here, but I hope you won't have trouble with me. :) Joking. I made severe and much needed changes, because the article was just getting out of proportion. I removed the RHCP controversy as it is clearly tabloid-oriented and its place is just not here, probably NME, but just not here. I also trimmed much of the sections as they just don't stand test of time. Have a look at yourself and I hope we'll get better of the article if we discuss all changes, peacefully. Have a great time, Michael!

With all due respect and kindest regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

Comments:
- Spare us the kumbaya moment, Mad Hatter. There is nothing productive about attempting to form alliances with others over trivial issues, & summoning me by tagging my name in your post above. It comes off as a juvenile taunt. I am absolutely willing to work collaboratively with others & reach compromises as needed in order to resolve differences. Historically, the Faith No More page has been loaded with run-on sentences, grammatical oversights, and erroneous information (i.e. Allmusic.com's auto-generated "Similar To" page as the only source for certain musical influences). I've attempted to clean up certain things while keeping ideas intact, & point out some weaknesses with sources. My contributions are well intended, & the majority of them have been well received. Binksternet's detective skills are commendable. He did a wonderful job of cherry-picking information from my edit history & presenting it in a way which favored a certain point of view. I will not disagree that I ignored the "edit war" warning. That was an honest mistake, but mistake nonetheless. I have never been in this situation before and didn't pay enough attention to the meaning & consequences of the warning. Ultimately, it is not my intention to be perceived as a "maverick," or an inflexible contributor. I will work harder to take a more diplomatic approach in regards to my edits. Any feedback on how to do so, beyond notations in the edit summary, would be appreciated.

Respectfully- Deadwords (talk)

There's no alliance here aside from the shared wish to represent the band suitable for Wikipedia's readers. And I mean for Wikipedia's readers, not for the band. Let's all concentrate on that goal. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I never stated that there was an alliance, only pointed out that his approach was unproductive. I believe that it was inappropriate, & that should be acknowledged. Is this sort of behavior tolerated here? Furthermore, your response seemed to gloss over the fact that I made a genuine effort to articulate the motivation behind my previous interactions with the band's wiki; instead, you chose to reiterate the previous incident, which I explicitly stated I have learned from. I returned to express that I've reflected, & will work harder in cooperation with other contributors in order to serve "Wikipedia's readers." I requested feedback on how to improve, not have sand thrown in my face. Users such as myself should have an opportunity to learn & grow from a situation, not have the past evoked after providing a thoughtful response. Binksternet- when you write "And I mean 'for' Wikipedia's readers, not 'for' the band," it could be interpreted as a bit passive aggressive. There is no reason to write "for" twice in quotes/italics, as if to imply that this concept is above my ability to comprehend. Simply delivering your feedback directly & professionally at this point is all that is necessary. Reinforce & encourage the behavior you want to increase, don't peseverate on the behavior you wish to decrease (especially if it's in the processes of being resolved/extinguished). I am not asking for special treatment, nor am I seeking any enthusiastic words of forgiveness & praise. I just want to be treated fairly. I don't believed that's happened at certain points. Again, I will work harder to take a more diplomatic approach in regards to my edits & be receptive to feedback during the process. Let's move on from this, please.

Deadwords (talk)

Mike Patton

Hello, quick update, I made serious changes regarding the bloated tabloid page of the famous singer of the band. Have a look at it. It was absolutely ridiculous, I tried to be absolutely uncompromising with it. Several ot the info on it, was very, very big mud of tabloid-oriented piece of garbage, apologies for the word, but it was this. So, now have a look at the page and of course on the other bandmembers and say your opinion on my page. Apologies if my talk page is bloated, but I decided not to archive anything. :) Have a great time, once again, Michael!

Kindest regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

I'm all about the articles representing as much as possible an accurate summary of the band and the singer as they have been portrayed by the media and by book authors. If you think the removal of the controversy section follows that plan then okay. I expect you will have to defend your actions against others who feel otherwise, since the controversy has received at least some press. Our job is to produce a suitable summary. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

crossover (music) about Fernando Varela (opera singer)

I do not understand what exactly was "promotional material". I can see not liking saying "A rising Star" without citing that he was called that be David Foster. But with that, I see nothing wrong in the rest. You can go through any number of pages and find similar entries. If you object to all of what I added back, I certainly think much of what you took out is in-objectionable. At least put it back to something closer to what it was... Please!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawillia (talk • contribs) 21:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Jason Orange

Hello Binksternet, Jason Orange says that "I want to blend in to public life and not be recognised", that's why I decided to end his active years on Wikipedia. No interviews, no nothing since he left Take That. Why do you think he is still active? Thanks! --Szilardka (talk) http://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz/goss/440010/Jason-Orange-Take-That-beer-local-Gary-Barlow

My reaction of reverting your edit was based on past activity at the article, with especially one editor having the apparent intent to bury Orange as a has-been. That's why I'm sensitive to this particular change of yours. Here is what I've seen in the past:

• 1990–2014
• retired
• former
• 1990–2014 former
• retired
• 1988–2014 retired
• 1988–2014 former
• 1988–2014 former
• 1988–2014
• 1988–2014
• 1988–2014
• 1988–2014
• 1988–2014
• 1988–2014

Most of this reversion was performed by Special:Contributions/82.40.3.55, an editor from Kirkby in the UK; the IP address was blocked for this disruption.

Orange is still able to sing in a group, and has not ever said he was completely retired. Even the reports of Orange being inactive have little hints of future activity, for instance he says he has "a few things in the pipeline". And there are reports of Orange runnning around with music business people. So I think it's too early to stick a fork in this guy and call him done. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your answer, thank you. I don't think that you are right though: if Jason decides to do something than his article can be edited. At the moment this Wikipedia article is incorrect, because he is not active. Thanks again, have a nice day! --Szilardka (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

citation

i added relible citation Ancient astronaut hypothesis  http://skepdic.com/vondanik.html is it ok  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manteshwiki (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC) 

Turn Up The Speakers

Hi, sometimes you don't have to "protect" pages so that no one else than you can edit them. I made a lot of good faith edits to it. You're reverted them all. I applaud to you, because you've ruined everything without even understanding why. The key of that song is F-major - you didn't care. The first tritone sounds like "Children" - you didn't care. Garrix's discography, Afrojack's discography - all down the drain. It's "big room house", I know it because I'm listening to it right now, and yes, it's a genre whether you like it or not. You did you job very well, I hope you've very proud of it, because moreover, you had the guts of accusing me of block evasion! Bravo! No go ahead and revert this very edit because you know you want to. Seal the deal. Have a good day, 96.127.247.194 (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of equipment list on Christoph Schneider page

Hello, I see the equipment list had been recently removed from the page of Christoph Schneider with the note of it being unencyclopedic. The reason I started to add and expend this list was to inform anyone who was interested in his sound to let them know what instruments were used. I am having troubles in understanding why it had to be removed. Good day. XFerence (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Information on Wikipedia must have been published somewhere else, preferably by way of WP:SECONDARY sources, that is, third party sources. The information you were adding was referenced to primary sources (www.rammstein.us, meinlcymbals.com, www.meinldistribution.eu, www.sonor.com, www.rammsteinniccage.com) which does not demonstrate any larger importance of the information. What you need is something like Modern Drummer publishing a description of Schneider's gear. However, Modern Drummer appears to take no interest in this kind of detail. If the media don't care about this stuff, then Wikipedia doesn't, either.

As an aside, I wonder why you did not choose to tell the reader that Vic Firth carries Christoph Schneider signature drumsticks. Typically, Wikipedia tells the reader about brand endorsements and signature products.

So, if you find secondary sources describing his drum equipment, then primary sources can be brought in to provide a bit more detail. But the main indication of importance is when secondary sources pay attention. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm still having difficulties in accepting the media's level of interest to be the deciding factor of information being displayed on Wikipedia. Shouldn't Wikipedia be a source of information of all for all? Surely, not everyone sees the importance of equipment on pages of lets say an artist, but in this case drummers with a curiousity for the drummer of Rammstein can be interested in the equipment. If they want to know what part of the setup produces the sound they adore so much, why withhold it? If the media doesn't care, so what?

As for the Vic Firth signature sticks, I wasn't done yet.

Certain other pages of musicians contain equipment list (non-signature). So apparently there are more people that see it's relevance to share this kind of information across.XFerence (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Skipping user warning template levels

Please don't skip user warning template levels on the user pages of good-faith newbies. On User_talk:Zhyboo I saw you skipped unsourced level-1, skipped unsourced level-2, and threw out a level-3 block threat. That's not merely BITEy, it denied Zhyboo the important educational links in the level-1 template. I find it particularly ironic to bite a newbie for adding unsourced material to an article that itself is almost entirely unsourced. If I were in his place, I imagine I would have been dumbfounded by that. Alsee (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing something different. Zhyboo got a level 1 warning from Cluebot then I came along and delivered a level 4 edit-warring notice. So I skipped even one more level upward! The reason I triggered an edit warring warning was because of the history of activity at the film page Annie (2014 film). A series of accounts and IPs had been adding to the plot section, making it be too large with respect to the 700-word limit established by WP:FILMPLOT: Jan 2, Jan 3, Jan 3, Jan 4, Jan 4, Jan 5, Jan 18, and then Zhyboo's April 24, with the edit summary "can we please keep the plot?" making it appear that Zhyboo had been previously connected with the effort to expand the plot section, rather than a newcomer. At this point I was thinking that Zhyboo would be revealed as somebody's sockpuppet if I looked into the editing history and detected a pattern. In that light, when I saw that Zhyboo had created a new section called "Differences From the Stage Play" in a film article, likely indulging in original research, but at the very least adding unreferenced stuff, I thought this was worth a warning on the talk page. So I added a template at level 3 to ramp down the warning somewhat from the previous one, because this problem had occurred earlier. There were actually more problems in the indicated edit, such as the removal of referenced information. This was all because I was thinking of Zhyboo as a sock.

At any rate, the instructions at Template:Uw-vandalism1 say that one "need not start with a level-1 warning." If a gross violation is seen, then a higher level warning may be issued first. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the January edits. Based just on the two Zhyboo edits on Annie it looks like the "can we please keep the plot" edit summary was talking to Cluebot reverting the first edit. I haven't studied the January edit contents, but two of the IPs geolocate to Maryland (one IPv4 and one IPv6), one to Wisconsin, and one to Ireland. It would seem pretty weird for one person to go to that sort of effort for non-malicious edits. Shrug. There are also two short-history Usernames in there. None of the IPs or Usernames from January are talkers, but Zhyboo posted asking for help. At a minimum this may be potentially helpful new behavior. If they engage in talk then maybe their enthusiasm can be channeled more productively. Alsee (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that Zhyboo is not a sockpuppet. I would apologize to this editor but you have already struck my warning and issued a replacement. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Found thru Commons

Hiya Binkster! I found a pair of BLPs with no oversight or review, both on same individual and was wondering if you could help with tags or whatever these should have? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Daniel_Genis & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Daniel_A._Genis. Please ping me if reply is needed; it's a very busy weekend. Hope yours is great, too! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the guy is notable per WP:GNG, so one of those drafts might be accepted, after some cleaning up. I don't see a problem. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Sorry never thought a simple change from are to is on this article would offend Johncmarcia (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

hey

IP did it again

This IP changed the genre for No Me Ames despite your warnings not to do so on other articles. Where do you go to report IPs who keep doing this? Erick (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

That's inveterate socker MariaJaydHicky at work, using Little_Miss._Pac-Man, 82.132.244.222 and 86.158.65.46 for her recent disruption. Last November, she used 5.81.198.104 for the same argument, that the song is not Latin pop music but just Latin music. Frankly, the Latin this or Latin that genre is not supported very strongly by article text. What you need are good references. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, it's annoying when people change genres to suit their needs. Erick (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Higher Ground

There was trivia in the RHCP version but somebody keeps screwing it up. I trying to fix it and restore the facts as they were on the page b4 the incident happened.72.64.207.76 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think people are "screwing it up", I think they (myself included) are removing unimportant trivia on purpose, especially trivia without references. You have been restoring unreferenced text, which is going to be a problem if it keeps happening. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Poison Song Genre Change

In I want Action From Poison The Genre Is Glam Metal Heavy Metal And Hard Rock Its Hard Rock Because After The Guitar Solo There Is A Break In The Guitar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetofjelly (talk • contribs) 01:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Your personal analysis is not enough. Wikipedia relies on WP:SECONDARY sources to verify that the information is true. Your analysis cannot be verified so it cannot be used. If you want to have any influence here you must point to some reliable publication that supports your conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Another Genre Problem

The Genre To Shooting Star Is Glam metal Hard Rock And Heavy Metal The Cover Art Is The Album Cover And The B Side Is Wasteland and The Song Was Released On November 5, 2002 Because The Song Came Out The Same Day As A Single As A Bon Jovi Song Did And The Personnel Is Who I mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetofjelly (talk • contribs) 01:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Your personal analysis is not enough. Wikipedia relies on WP:SECONDARY sources to verify that the information is true. Your analysis cannot be verified so it cannot be used. If you want to have any influence here you must point to some reliable publication that supports your conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Barbra fan IP

Binsternet, an IP with range 200.*.* is creating havoc on the Barbra related lists and articles. Was blocked twice but keeps coming back with false info, record label sources etc and continuously WP:EW. What to do? Keeps on triggering the edit semi-prot template even after being answered his false claims. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

There are a bunch of IPs and IP6s involved; see the ANI thread I started which got one article protected for two weeks. The person is from China, and has problems with competency in English, and they are incredibly insistent that they are correct. I would like somebody to protect the various Streisand articles for six months at a time, but I will have to make a stronger case. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

On the usefulness of Rate Your Music and Discogs

Yes, Rate Your Music and Discogs might not be reliable as for their user-posted music reviews and ratings. That's fine, however, I use such online databases to consult basic data such as track listings, catalog numbers, etc., but I mostly use them for collecting the highly reliable info printed on the cover art itself, that at least in the case of Discogs are quite legible scans and photographs from the originals that I haven't found in any other website.
Besides, AllMusic leaves a lot to be desired.
Well, thanks anyway.
(LFdoR (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC))

I like the Discogs scans of labels and album art; I agree they are often helpful. Unfortunately, images are easily doctored, which means they can omit information or they can add spurious information. I get your point about track lists. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"This Summer's Gonna Hurt"

If reliable sources were saying the song had a stadium rock (AKA arena rock) sound, then why did you put "rock" and "alternative rock" for genre instead of "arena rock"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomChoiceForMe (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

My preference is that arena rock would be considered a musical genre on Wikipedia, but I was unable to convince other editors at the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Music_genres_task_force#Arena rock - Genre or not?. I think it is a genre because the arrangement and composition of a song are affected by whether the band wants to perform it to a huge audience. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You may or may not have figured out by now that genres confuse me and I don't agree with many genre rules, but for the sake of Wikipedia I'm trying to positively contribute by seeking help with edits and trying to find sources that are deemed reliable. Anyway, if this song is considered "stadium rock" than from what I've learned I would either put "arena rock" or just "rock" like you did the first time if the former isn't considered a genre. A lot of rock music has always been played in large stadiums so in my head rock/arena rock would flow together more than arena rock and alternative but again the many subgenres confuse me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomChoiceForMe (talk • contribs) 20:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right, if the source says "stadium rock" then a "rock" genre is perfectly suitable. I don't remember exactly which one but I recall one of the sources saying it was alt rock. If that's not the case then "rock" it is. Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the sources did say pop/alternative sound it but also said stadium rock, which I've seen in other sources as well, so if it's okay, I'd like to insert "rock" as a genre for the song.

Poison Power to the People

The song is alternative metal and industrial rock it was recorded in 2000 and was the first single released on the bands independent label cyanide music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetofjelly (talk • contribs) 01:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how strongly you express this as fact, because Wikipedia requires all facts to be verifiable. You need to show that the facts have been published by a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

On Power to the People from Poison I feel the genre is alternative metal and industrial rock because musically its heavier than anything the band has done before it and musically the song fits the cards for alternative metal and industrial rock as it is alternative and industrial sounding and its alternative metal because it has guitar all the way through it its based on guitar riffs and its heavy like a Marilyn Manson song its industrial rock because it has the carectoriztics of a industrial rock song and on Shooting Star from poison the genre is glam metal heavy metal and hard rock its the glam metal because its not all that heavy and it is pop sounding like glam metal is its heavy metal because its a little heavy on the bass and its hard rock because the guitar breaks a little. Planetofjelly (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you reading what I'm writing? You need to show a reliable published source, not describe how you arrived at your personal analysis. If the published source agrees with your analysis, fine. But we cannot put your personal analysis into the article. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Reversions to LGBT Parenting

I would ask that you stop reverting my edits. They are made in good faith. I would prefer if you would discuss your issues with me first to try to come to a consensus. Although I am new as a logged in user of Wikipedia, I have made numerous anonymous edits over the years and have always tried to behave congenially and move the project forward. On that note, my objection to your reversion of my contribution to the LGBT Parenting article is two fold: 1. The reason for your reversion deals only with one sentence of a larger critique of the study (which has appropriate citations) but you deleted the entire critique by your reversion instead of editing the sentence you believe offends the WP:SYN guideline and 2. I don't believe the reverted material in fact offends the WP:SYN guideline. Fitzgerald's analysis applies to all small sample convenience studies - Fitzgerald was making a universal statement which had direct application to this 2010 study because it had the exact same methodologies - a small sample convenience study (the citation is also quoted in the "Methodologies" section of the article because the critique applies to virtually all studies on LGBT Parenting). Approximately 0.18% of U.S. Households with children are headed by a homosexual couple which makes conducting a random population based survey essentially impossible because you would not find enough such households through a random survey to qualify the sample as having statistical significance. Hence, the use of convenience or snowball samples in LGBT Parenting research - but these samples all suffer from the critique that Fitzgerald provided - it doesn't matter whether the results of the survey were published before 1999 or after. What's sad is that another editor cited to the Fitzgerald analysis as evidence that there is consensus in the field - without noting that while there is consensus among the studies, Fitzgerald stated that the studies were universally weak, limited and subject to bias because they were small and non-representative of the population.Sapientia-et-veritas (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The person who wants to add or or restore challenged text is the one who has the burden of answering the challenges. Challenged text is generally kept out of the article until agreement is reached. Right now, there is a majority of editors wishing the text to remain out. My problem with your connection of a 1999 paper to a 2010 report is a problem of WP:SYNTH. You are extrapolating a connection which is not explicitly stated. Binksternet (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You stated - "The person who wants to add or or restore challenged text is the one who has the burden of answering the challenges." I did answer the challenges if you didn't notice - when someone reverted for lack of citations, I provided the citations. But that person reverted again anyway without giving a reason. There was only one editor who wanted to revert the text, but he/she refused to provide a reason why. You had an issue with one sentence out of a larger text but reverted the entire passage despite it being fully referenced and accurately cited the research which the article referenced. So, again, why did you revert the entire passage instead of editing the sentence you had an issue with? If you have an issue with the larger passage, then why? It accurately quoted the research and provided the page number within the journal article where the information could be found. Regarding the your issue with WP:SYNTH in the sentence in question, I was quoting an authority regarding the problem with these kinds of studies generally - not creating a new synthesis or implying that the authority had reviewed the study and was commenting on it. Perhaps it could have been more artfully phrased, but I don't believe it violated WP:SYNTH. Regarding your statement that "there is a majority of editors wishing the text to remain out" - there was one editor beside yourself and from your statement it appears you believe that it OK to keep factual referenced material out if one or two editors do not like the material for whatever reason whatsoever - be it ideology, personal belief, etc. Is that your take on it?Sapientia-et-veritas (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What ya think ?

I added User:Babsfan24 to your SPI report, now IndianBio and I have this new message maybe they should join the party ? Mlpearc (open channel) 01:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The first-ever edit by that account[1] made reference to a discussion about von Karajan that had taken place wa-a-ay back in April 2008. It seems unlikely that our new Chinese friend would be concerned about this, or be interested in sorting through the archives at that list article, which are extensive. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This is like an infestation, wherever you block another new one crops up! —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. If I could, I'd like to explain that I've been interested in Herbert von Karajan's sales and I've found discussion about it through list's archive. Maybe I did a mistake editing Herbert article (as I think nowadays), but I hadn't bad faiths. And according to Barbra's sales I've just seen there was a problem with finding the compromise (running little edit war) so I've decided to ask which information is true/reliable and could be use (due to 145 million in the Barbra Streisand article and 245 million in the Barbra Streisand discography). Please believe I have good faith in that question, I've just tryed to find answer. Thank You for understanding:) I'm not one of the IPs user who as I see has edited Barbra article, I've just read that and asked about it. It seems to me You've thought that I'm so kind of bad faith editor, so I would like to explain it. Thank You:) NS _Talk 09:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

24.159.125.20 and AIV

Hi. I had a look through this user's recent contributions. They seem to all be related to fiddling about with birth places in infoboxes. When they violate WP:BLP, I don't think they do so out of malice or pushing any POV, and there's definitely nothing I would define as vandalism. I can't see any problematic edits since your final warning, so a block would not be appropriate at this stage. You might want to try a personalised message explaining what the problem is, rather than a template. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I might. If this person responded to a talk page message it would be the first time. Binksternet (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

it is not my personal analysis re B-17 use to attack cities. You can read about that in wikipedia articles such as firebombing of dresden, hamburg, hannover and so on. Furthermore, I have been there and I can certify the bombing took place. Why you think what I wrote is a personal analysis and not historically accurate? Also, where is the formal tone breached? Just so I can avoid doing that in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bavareze (talk • contribs) 07:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You are conflating "cities" with "civilians". German cities containing significant military forces were targets, because of the military presence. "Civilians" were not targeted as such. Your addition put forward the idea that the B-17 was "primarily employed... against German industrial, civilian and military targets." The bomber was not primarily employed against civilian targets, which is why I removed your single added word. Binksternet (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple though. There is no (and never will be) agreement on whether B-17s over Dresden bombed a civilian target or a railway target deliberately. Let's assume for the moment that we agree "railways of the Third Reich" to be military targets. What actually happened is that B-17s bombed civilian areas of Dresden (not all of them, some even managed to bomb Prague instead). There is no agreement on what their intended target what and records are now so vague we'll never know.

We do know a few things. The RAF had a policy of area bombing by night civilian cities, because they just couldn't hit a narrower target. In general, the USAF were day bombing to permit greater accuracy (and greater losses) and so were targeting specific industrial or military targets.

We also know that B-17s over Dresden did hit (even if not target) civilian areas. We also know that their bomb load was changed to be more like the RAF bomb load for cities, with more incendiaries. This is not a choice for hitting precision bombing of specific military targets. Particularly with the B-17, which had a much smaller bomb bay than the Lancaster and so lost out on capacity when using incendiaries to an extent that seriously limited conventional bomb load. This is why they didn't use quite as many incendiaries as the Lancasters did. B-17s having filled the volume available limited their ability to carry weight, would be starting to fly "half empty" (by weight). They wouldn't have done this unless those incendiaries were considered specifically useful for the Dresden target.

So in general, it's fair to say that the US took a policy of strategic bombing of military targets (and so questioning whether they achieved this) whilst the RAF abandoned attempts for precision and went to deliberate area bombing by night. This is the primary message that an encyclopedia should convey. However there were exceptions, there may even have been deliberate exceptions. Dresden was certainly one of them, by consequence. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The word "primarily" was my bedrock here. Binksternet (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

when the military tactical gain causes disproportionately high civilian casualties, the attack may no longer be excused as an attack against military targets, therefore legitimate use of force. admitting attacking a city railway infrastructure (while causing extensive damage to dwellings) as a legitimate attack against military strategic objective is same as categorizing 9/11 attack as a legitimate attack by the alQaeda against their declared enemy (the us government) since all people working in the twin towers paid tax money that was, in turn, used by the government to outmaneuver the alQuaeda. Most people will judge the attack on 9/11 as an attack against civilians, despite the fact that it caused indirect losses to the government. Same thing, with area bombing of WW2, since tens of thousand of civilians (who did not have an option to be there or not) perished, it should be counted as an attack against city/civilian target, with the military a co-target. The tremendous amount of drama and casualty caused by air raids and complete destruction of cities with less than 20% of civilian dwelling left standing warrants the civilian to be listed as a primary target, intended or not. to me, this does not look like a destroyed military target http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Koeln_1945.jpg or this https://www.google.com/search?q=hamburg+after+ww2&espv=2&biw=1089&bih=854&tbm=isch&imgil=-tr701Paczog6M%253A%253BWuSrpGURInu3KM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.profmcginty.co.uk%25252Fww2Photos.htm&source=iu&pf=m&fir=-tr701Paczog6M%253A%252CWuSrpGURInu3KM%252C_&usg=__d4l-wS5SjbsVuPZN56ioKLP-51U%3D&dpr=1.1&ved=0CDQQyjc&ei=5FxtVcqPEsXDsAWWy4DQBA#imgrc=t4y2dFalB3ZRKM%253A%3BKR4pyJI0X8rMKM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fs3.amazonaws.com%252Frapgenius%252Fhighres_30018945%252520copy.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fgenius.com%252F1355564%252FRammstein-mein-herz-brennt%252FIch-hab-euch-etwas-mitgebracht-hab-es-aus-meiner-brust-gerissen%3B590%3B428 . Imagine someone leveling los angeles and claiming it was ok just because Boeing has a factory around here...

virtually every city in the developed world contains railways and roads, which can be of military use. assuming what you say is right, each and every city could be reasonably wiped off the face of the world in the event of a conflict involving the nation that owns that city. there are so many railways in nyc, would you have found it ok and justified as a military target if nyc would have been leveled somehow by the vietnamese 40 years ago? just that it was not nearly possible does not mean you should not think of that from a moral standpoint. most people would say "no, leveling off to the ground nyc would have been a war crime as it would have killed 9 million people, most of them civilians" can you contest that?

Bavareze (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The B-17 article is not the place to make that argument. You will want to see the articles Aerial bombing of cities and Strategic bombing during World War II. Those ones have room for your concerns, if they don't already cover them. Binksternet (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Barbra as a fashion icon

How could a fashion icon like Barbra whose article without her influence on fashion? There's so many fashion magazines such as Vogue, Elle, Marie Claire, Harper's Bazaar have contributed to Barbra so many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skkywill (talk • contribs) 14:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Because she is not a fashion icon. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

She is,there's so many fashion magazines such as Vogue, Elle, Marie Claire, Harper's Bazaar have proved Barbra is a great fashion icon. http://www.stylelist.com/view/barbra-streisand-turns-71/ http://www.vogue.com/1449687/barbra-streisand-new-album-partners-celebrity-style/ http://www.elleuk.com/fashion/celebrity-style/barbra-streisand-is-victoria-beckham-style-icon http://www.marieclaire.com/fashion/g2204/barbra-streisand-style/ http://www.instyle.com/fashion/undefined http://www.glamour.com/inspired/women-of-the http://www.harpersbazaar.com/fashion/photography/g1211/jennifer-aniston-barbra-streisand-pictures-0910/ http://www.vogue.com/869224/andre-leon-talley-on-the-best-oscars-dresses-of-all-time/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skkywill (talk • contribs) 07:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

None of this is different than any famous person whose appearance is the subject of comment by the popular media. The most these sources say is that Streisand is known to be a very sharp dresser. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not by comment the popular media, it's comments about Barbra as fashion icon by the most popular fashion magazines in the world, and words “style icon", "fashion icon" were used to described Barbra’s fashion icon statue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skkywill (talk • contribs) 08:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is a genre

Have a read here: Adult contemporary music. Caden ^cool 17:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Which says, "Therefore, it is not usually considered a specific genre of music; it is merely an assemblage of selected tracks from musicians of many different genres." Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it is not a genre. It is instead a radio or internet station programming format. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Albright Article Improviser/Composer Disagreement with Proof

Hello Binksternet,

You recently undid the addition of a section with cited, published articles about Albright being an improviser and composer, with the reason being that your opinion is that he is not "famous as a composer" and that ""Improviser" is not warranted -- not enough sources saying "the improviser Albright" or similar."

Below are just five (5) published and cited articles that state otherwise. Please revert your "undo"ing of the additions. Thank you!

Sources: DC Metro Theater Arts: http://dcmetrotheaterarts.com/2015/04/24/keith-lockhart-bbc-concert-orchestra-center-for-the-arts/ "So much so, that Albright was brought back to perform an encore: the audience picked four musical notes and he improvised a piece using those four notes as a base. To hear the initial sequence of four notes and then what an elaborate, beautiful piece Albright turned those simple notes into was thrilling—we had heard what he could do with a piece by someone else, but to listen to his own improvisation, and the emotion he poured into this simple piece – really showed his skill and passion for the piano and for music. He received a well-deserved second standing ovation."

El Nuevo Herald: http://www.elnuevoherald.com/entretenimiento/musica/article19210155.html "Decir que el joven solista es genial, ya resulta un lugar común, pero por si quedara duda, ante la ovación final, ofreció improvisar sobre cuatro notas que le dictaron al azar desde el público… No hay palabras para describir lo que hizo con ese “pie forzado”. Un intérprete único y, para colmo, vestido con impecable y ultramoderna elegancia. Su blanca chaqueta no tenía botones, bolsillos ni solapa."

Classical Source: http://www.classicalsource.com/db_control/db_concert_review.php?id=12778 "Charlie Albright, who joins the BBCCO on its tour of fourteen American cities, gave an exciting account of Ravel’s G major Piano Concerto and thrilled the audience with a brilliantly improvised encore." "Albright offered a rather unusual encore – an improvisation based on four notes called out by members of the audience (B flat, D, A flat and E). The spectacular result, about five minutes long, was suggestive of the great Romantic composer-pianists, leading one to wonder whether their now-familiar works might have had similar improvisational origins. Albright has a bright future not only as a pianist but as a composer as well."

Palm Beach Daily News: http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/news/local/bbc-concert-orchestra-gives-afternoon-concert-of-l/nkttw/ "Albright displayed his virtuosity by performing an audience-driven improvisation as an encore. Asking the crowd to provide a handful of pitches for him to use – B-flat, D, A-flat and E – he settled into a comfortable language living somewhere between Dmitri Shostakovich, Ravel and Frederic Chopin. - See more at: http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/news/local/bbc-concert-orchestra-gives-afternoon-concert-of-l/nkttw/#sthash.rQwclIFB.dpuf"

AL.com: http://www.al.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2013/03/pianist_charlie_albright_techn.html "Improvisations are starting to become more commonplace among classical performers, and Albright has followed suit, his 10-minute on-the-spot composition conjuring Beethoven. A minor-key classical-romantic hybrid, it began as a kind of slow theme and variations and morphed to more of a fantasia, never straying far from familiar 19th century ground." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdanieloh (talk • contribs) 15:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

First, you have a conflict of interest with regard to Albright, so you cannot push your preferred version without consensus.

Second, your sources aren't saying that Albright is primarily an improviser, that his concerts are known as improvisation events. Rather, he entertains the audience with improvisation as a kind of spice.

Third, Albright is not famous for his compositions, despite the fact that he does indeed compose. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. In response to your posts: 1) You, Binksternet, made the conflict of interest. That is also, in a way, a conflict of interest. 2) The sources are saying that he is, indeed, an improvisor. Just because his concerts often contain more than 50% non-improvised pieces does not deter from the fact that he is an improvisor. Check out his videos on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/pianomanca)...a large number are also of improvisations. Your reasoning is simply invalid. If someone knows how to sing, that doesn't mean they can't also be a dancer during a show, no? 3) Again, this is an opinion. I am backing it up with published articles. Do not use your seniority on Wikipedia to overrule published facts.

The infobox is not supposed to host an exhaustive list. Instead, it displays the most important facts about a topic. If, for instance, Albright has played the harpsichord a few times, the infobox should not say he is a harpsichordist; instead, his contact with the harpsichord should be stated in prose in the article body, if relevant. Likewise, the fact that Albright improvises during a portion of his concerts should be stated in the article body (as is the case now), since the media comments on it. However, the media does not characterize Albright as an improviser. They don't say "the improviser Albright" or "Albright the famous improviser". So being an improviser is not a defining characteristic, and the fact should not be positioned in the infobox.

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and Template:Infobox_musical_artist pages have some instructions for what to do with infobox entries. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join new discussions on Ave Maria University talk page

Hi! In light of a flurry of recent edits to Ave Maria University, I've opened a couple of new discussions at Talk:Ave Maria University. We should probably work to achieve consensus there. I'll be inviting all the named users who have been editing at AMU. Thanks in advance for your input! Jacona (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the reflist-talk templates. It's simple, and a huge improvement. Jacona (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

He's back

Trying to cause trouble at Talk:Easter Rising. I notice him here supporting himself. Scolaire (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked him and removed the posts that no one had responded to....
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Scolaire (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Awesome work, you guys. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Skkywill

That Chinese IP user is back again on Babs articles. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You guys should consider watchlisting Cher. Guess who is a fan? Check these contribs.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Eric Clapton - your edit reverted

I had already reverted the sock puppet edits you were concerned about on Eric Clapton, plus the one before it, and opened a discussion on the talk page. Your revert partly undid my revert, so I've undone it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for keeping track. I was assuming that you were trying to keep some of the recent changes, but since I'm wrong about that, everything's fine with me. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverting an editor's edits on her talk page

You really should not have kept reverting at User talk:Kelisalicia. For one thing, an editor has a right to remove messages from their talk page when they have seen them. For another thing, and more importantly, a blocked editor has aright to have their unblock request reviewed by an administrator, and by repeatedly removing the request, you were denying her that right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not a valid unblock request as it comes from a banned editor who is socking. The editor should log in to her MariaJaydHicky account and (try to) get unblocked there. In any case, the Kelisalicia account was created as a sock by KeziaMarshall, so there's no chance of salvation for Kelisalicia by appeal on the talk page. You and Diannaa both know what's up with this person; she's an inveterate socker, and there will be no unblock in this case. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with JamesBWatson that you should not have removed the unblock request. In the future please just post a comment below it, like I did at User talk:Cazzaflazza. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand your positions on this matter. The advice is good, but it doesn't jibe with Wikipedia:Reverting#Exceptions which says "reverts of banned users" may be made at any time without regard to 3RR. Similarly, Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions says that "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users", is an exception the 3RR rule. You guys are following the guideline at Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings but that says nothing about banned editors, so there's a gap in the rules at this junction, open to interpretation. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand your thinking on this, but still disagree. Each unblock request should get an independent admin review, no matter who puts it up, imo. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, your thinking on this has been somewhat unclear. You have just quoted two statements about situations in which the "three revert rule" does not forbid reverting. That is totally irrelevant, because the objection I raised to your reverting was nothing to do with the three revert rule: the main reason was to do with denying an editor the right to request an appeal of a block. You refer to the edit-warring policy, which says that "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users" ... "are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR" (my emphasis) but it does not say "and also exceptions to every other policy which might forbid a revert". (The same applies to Wikipedia:Reverting, which, however, is not a policy, nor even a guideline). The blocking policy gives editors the right to request an unblock, and to have that request reviewed by "an uninvolved administrator". An editor with an account which has been blocked because it is believed to be a sockpuppet has a right to defend herself or himself against the accusation of sockpuppetry, and to have their defence assessed by an administrator. The fact that some other editor believes the accusation of sockpuppetry does not entitle them to nullify that right. You are, as Diannaa, said, perfectly free to express an opinion on the validity of the block on the editor's talk page, but only an administrator can decide to accept or reject the unblock request. Not only is this policy, but it is also common sense: to take the opposite view would, as I have indicated, mean that any editor at all could effectively prevent an editor wrongly blocked for sockpuppetry from having any opportunity to seek redress.

While I am here, I may as well mention also that both on the Kelisalicia talk page and on User talk:Baseballguy87.5, I have noticed that you have posted sockpuppet warnings linking to nonexistent sockpuppet investigations. In the case of Kelisalicia there is a SPI page, but it has been archived since 31 May, and there is no report there relating to Kelisalicia; in the case of Baseballguy87.5, there is not, and never has been, an SPI at the title you gave. Be careful about this sort of mistake: it is not helpful to post a message saying "Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at [link to SPI page]" when there actually is no evidence there to respond to. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Of course it's true that people are not required to revert the socking of a banned editor, and I understand that the accused should have a chance at redress. But are we not training the master socker to improve their block evasion skills when we explain on the sockpuppet talk page why they have been blocked? Binksternet (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

And the issue of boilerplate template text asking the suspected sock to prepare their defense... Perhaps its time we had a template which simply says that the person has been identified as a probable sock, without indicating a case page. I would like to be able tag a talk page so that people coming there after me will know there's already a high level of suspicion about the person's edits. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You can place {{Sockpuppet|MariaJaydHicky}} the talk page. The template is intended for use on the user page, but displays fine on the talk page as well. This action will be unnecessary most of the time as currently like you I am now spotting the socks within minutes (unless I am at the gym or not yet out of bed) and will act. Regarding information placed by the blocking admin on the user talk page, I don't place a block template on this particular sockmaster's talk as I don't want her wasting admin time applying for unblocks. I agree we have to play our cards close to the chest and not let her know what her "tells" are and how we are discovering her so quickly. But note I blocked Cazzaflazza based on behavior alone, and did not discover the contents of the log until afterwards, so she in fact learns nothing from me having posted this info on her talk for the benefit of the reviewing admin. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't make a habit of linking a sockpuppet's talk page to an SPI page, as I think the disadvantage of letting sockpuppeteers know what give-away signs to avoid next time usually far outweighs any advantage. In the minority of occasions when it really is a good idea to let them know, someone or other does so, so I never have to do it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Kate Bush Hounds of Love Edit

I added a genre ('art-rock') with a proper citation to back it up. I'm not sure what the problem is there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.213.1 (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Pahlavi dynasty

Would you look at[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pahlavi_dynasty&diff=next&oldid=1706530] November 2003 and [2] dated May that year, looks as though the first major edit was copyvio. Doug Weller (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

And see [3] where this user is created a duplicate article and makes it clear, as does his talk page, he doesn't understand our copy io policy. He of course has nothing to do with the issue above. Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I will look at these when I get the chance. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

But this copyrighted webpage was archived in 2002, earlier than the text copied from it. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, stripped quite a bit of copyvio out, added by an IP in one edit in November 2013. Doug Weller (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible NPOV violation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mission_Indians&type=revision&diff=663436495&oldid=656540069 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.66.178 (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Which? Looks like that should be violations. Anmccaff (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I rolled the article back to before the disruption and cleaned up some fact-challenged bits. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Pahlavi dynasty #2

Hello, Binksternet. I just want to share some thoughts of mine about the use of templates at Pahlavi dynasty. Having in mind that, so far, Imperial State of Iran isn't yet recreated as an article which would contain Former Country template (as it should be), I think it would be a good idea to include both Former Country template and Royal house template at Pahlavi dynasty, at least for now. After all, at this point we still have Former Country template at Qajar dynasty (it should also be corrected at some time in the future), so I really don't see some strong reasons not to temporary include Former Country template at the Pahlavi article. --Sundostund (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to patch with a Band-Aid. First, why is the former country dated from 1925?[4] The former country goes back much further. I think the wiki can wait until someone creates a proper former country article. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand your position, but I think the wiki also can't wait forever until someone creates a former country article. This issue was raised almost a year ago (in August 2014), and so far nobody moved a finger to create Imperial State of Iran... I myself wouldn't dare to jump into that, because I don't want to just copy-paste material from Pahlavi dynasty, or even worse, to add some copyvio-OR material founded online. We definitely need someone to do this and fast, in order to finally settle the issue of Former Country template at the Pahlavi article, and to remove the same template from Qajar dynasty (Imperial State of Iran would encompass Former Country template for both periods [ca. 1794-1979]). --Sundostund (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please

EXCUSE ME....WHY DO U KEEP REMOVING MY EDITS... REALLY ANNOYING ME, I LIKE EDITING ON WIKIPEDIA...BUT YOUR NOT LETTING ME , IT'S UNFAIR! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britneyspearsfan17 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep adding original research, which is not allowed? You keep adding text that says "failed to be included"[5][6][7][8][9] but which is not supported by references. You keep adding[10] very low quality sources such as http://unreleasedbritney.4mg.com/leaked.html, a self-published fansite.

Finally, you have engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, using multiple IPs and accounts to repeatedly revert to your preferred version, violating WP:3RR in the process.

• Special:Contributions/64.229.62.110
• Special:Contributions/64.229.63.196
• Special:Contributions/65.94.164.173
• Special:Contributions/70.55.169.69
• Special:Contributions/174.89.74.214
• Special:Contributions/174.94.113.48
• Special:Contributions/205.237.30.13
• Special:Contributions/205.237.30.14
• Special:Contributions/205.237.30.15

You were blocked for two weeks because of your edit warring with multiple accounts (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Britneyspearsfan17.) During the block period you edited anyway, under the following IPs:

• Special:Contributions/64.229.51.58
• Special:Contributions/65.94.164.173
• Special:Contributions/205.237.30.16
• Special:Contributions/205.237.30.147
• Special:Contributions/205.237.30.148
• Special:Contributions/205.237.30.149
• Special:Contributions/205.237.30.254

With all of this block evasion and edit warring, people around here have lost quite a bit of patience with you. You are so very close to getting banned, it's not even funny. If you start edit warring again, you'll probably be blocked indefinitely. Ah, I see that you have already been blocked indefinitely. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

House Music and Garage Pages - IP Address concerns - 173.215.218.83, 72.50.54.115 and Frevel8093

Hello there!

More problems, I'm afraid...

IP addresses 173.215.218.83 and 72.50.54.115 are making similar un-cited revisions to the format and content of the House Music and Garage Music pages - and others. I am also concerned about the activities of Frevel8093, who seems to be behaving in a similar manner (and has also moved the Garage music page without citing the reasons). Your experienced input would be much appreciated!

(Etheldavis (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC))

When I get a chance I will look at this. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed. I hope all is well with you.

(Etheldavis (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC))

Truffle Butter (Nicki Minaj Song)

Yeah, you removed my placing Maya Jane Coles as a producer on the song. I'm not sure why you'd do that when it's clearly stated (with sources) that the song was originally produced by Coles, and then slightly edited by producer Nineteen85. You said to provide sources, so if that is not enough, then go to the ASCAP website (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers), go to the ACE search, enter the Work ID of 888201326, or just type in the name "Truffle Butter," and the second result is the Nicki Minaj song. Minaj is listed as a writer and performer, Aubrey Graham Drake is listed as writer, Dwayne Michael Carter (Lil Wayne) is listed as a writer, Maya Jane Cole is listed as well, as a producer, as well as the other guy. So there you have it, straight from the official documents. I changed it back already, so you don't have to worry about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.113.4 (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Singer-songwriter

Regarding this edit, you're probably already aware that you've been reverted. I was hoping it would stick, because you are 100% correct: Trainor isn't a singer-songwriter by the actual definition. Even Wikipedia's article on singer-songwriter refutes the consensus reached a while back at the Trainor article. Sadly, too many who have no clue what a singer-songwriter actually is went with "it's what reliable references support" in spite of the fact that just as many (if not more) reliable references don't incorrectly refer to Trainor as a singer-songwriter. At the discussion, I was called every name in the book (including a "music snob") for insisting the definition not be used as it doesn't apply. It was a losing battle, and the encyclopedia is not the better for it. It was nice to see someone who gets it attempt to make the correct change. Maybe it's an age-thing, in part, as there are a number of very young Trainor-fans who edit and watchlist the article; whereas people like myself who actually are musicians and old enough to remember what a singer-songwriter truly was/is seem to be in the minority. Pity, really. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hounds of Love

Can you mind if who would add unreliable sources (maybe)? 115.164.54.124 (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work in reverting low quality additions. Binksternet (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hi Binksternet, just giving you a friendly heads up about this AN/I post, since I linked one of your diffs in my reply. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Invisible Touch Edits

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, but if you really listen carefully and perhaps, read the description on the page about the song. You'll find that this particular Genesis song uses a Electronic drum pad and also uses Synthesisers. It's popular "Pop" song of course yes, which you've gotten correct. I ain't no sound technician or DJ for that matter as you appear in being. But in understanding music you don't need to be.

I've gather some important reference material after reading extensively. We have Allmusic; http://www.allmusic.com/album/invisible-touch-mw0000190104 and here at Consequenceofsound http://consequenceofsound.net/2010/03/dusting-em-off-genesis-invisible-touch/ Plus this source possibly http://diffuser.fm/genesis-invisible-touch/

So.. I'm getting at it's a Synthrock song with large elements of electronic instruments. Due with being "pop" It can also fall under the Synthpop genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.69.45.28 (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Erlewine of AllMusic says the following:

Invisible Touch is, without a doubt, Genesis' poppiest album, a sleek, streamlined affair built on electronic percussion and dressed in synths that somehow seem to be programmed, not played by Tony Banks. In that sense, it does seem a bit like No Jacket Required, and the heavy emphasis on pop tunes does serve the singer, not the band... the arty moments sank to the bottom, obscured by the big, bold pop hooks here -- pop that was the sound of the mainstream in the late '80s, pop that still effortlessly evokes its time.

(Emphasis added by me.) So this extreme affirmation of the album's pop music status cannot be ignored.

Andy Hermann of Diffuser says that the album is a mix of pop music, prog rock and arena rock. He said "More than any previous Genesis record, Invisible Touch announced itself as a pop album... the poppiest album of their career." (Emphasis added by me.)

Alex Young of Consequence of Sound agrees that the album is a blend of pop and prog. So the article should first emphasize the pop music aspect, and also mention the prog rock in second place. Binksternet (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
2. Ubikwit (talk · contribs) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
3. MONGO (talk · contribs) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

This IP address does NOT belong to Binksternet.

Hey I'd just like to chime in and say that I'm actually NiklawskiMSTM. I am NOT, in any way, shape, or form, Binksternet. I have a dynamic IP address and I'm guessing s/he does, too. My IP, due to my dynamic IP address, is 63.230.55.164. But that IP probably will not belong to me for an extended period of time (who knows; I remember last year I had the same IP for over two months). I was actually reading exactly how long a sidereal day is when I got this notification saying that I have a new message, which is weird because I just formatted this hard drive last week (I have [[Ubuntu (operating system)|Ubuntu as an OS and I like to edit system files so I end up formatting my hard drive a lot due to screwing up) and haven't logged back into Wikipedia yet.

Tl;dr: This IP is not Binksternet's. I have a dynamic IP address and s/he probably does, too. So this IP (63.230.55.164) currently belongs to me (NiklawskiMSTM) and probably won't tomorrow. So yeah don't associate this IP with him/her and if you associate this IP with myself, don't associate it with me for an extended period of time.

Verification

Just logged into my own account to verify this claim.

NiklawskiMSTM traveled from the fourth dimension to deliver this text to you. Please thank him on his talk page. 22:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

respuesta

De verdad

Gloria roman (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

My re-inserted revisions to "Time Machine" plot summary

I'm hoping this is the best way to communicate my reasoning for the re-inserted revisions.

para 1 - the building of the time machine itself is not what Alexander thinks will save Emma - he intends to travel back in time, so this needs to be included; don’t use passive voice for the mugger killing Emma and Alexander completing the machine

para 3 - “one” agrees with “speaks” (an Eloi who speaks; one Eloi speaks; etc.) - this is a common grammatical mistake (like Match.com's adds: One out of five relationships begin online.. You wouldn't say "One relationship begin online")

para 4 - should end with description of Uber-Morlocks

para 5 - The film shows the Uber-Morlock revealing the machine, so it is useful in the plotsum; “suddenly” is not necessary in the plotsum; “into the machine” is redundant; “Alexander gets into the machine, but also pulls the Uber-Morlock in with him” takes care of both points; he “prepares to return home” is unnecessary for the plotsum

para 6 - useful to know about the Morlocks’ pursuit; they don’t just let the pair leave freely

para 7 - after the escape and “new life” scenes, a new paragraph is needed for the final scene (i.e. "the film ends" = "in conclusion" = new paragraph); “displayed in parallel” is a poor wording (“juxtaposed in the same location but in different times” is much clearer); “until the master returns” is a quotation, but “until Alexander returns” is correct for the plotsum; mentioning the housekeeper's exit isn’t needed in the plotsum; “she turns” isn’t needed since we already have “as she leaves”, which also makes “she then quietly walks out” redundant; the plotsum doesn't need quotation of housekeeper's farewell; we don’t see Philby walking out and he isn’t facing away from the laboratory, so he can’t “look back”; Philby’s focus is not the whole house (i.e. “walks out the house and looks back”) but rather the laboratory; “before walking off” is not necessary, but the “in tribute” clause is an appropriate summary

"The film ends with two scenes juxtaposed in the same location but in different times: while Alexander shows Mara and Kalen a field that was once his home, Philby and Alexander's housekeeper, Mrs. Watchit, sadly discuss his absence. Philby tells Mrs. Watchit he's glad that Alexander's gone to a place where he can find peace, then tells her that he would like to hire her as a housekeeper, which she accepts until Alexander returns. Mrs. Watchit bids Alexander farewell and Philby leaves, looking toward the laboratory contentedly, then throws his bowler hat away in tribute to Alexander's distaste for conformity."

Xanderox (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't really have any concerns about that page. Binksternet (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the new technology of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

DJ Fresh

Hi Binksternet, I'm hoping you can help me out as you don't seem to approve of my updates to the DJ Fresh page. I am part of DJ Fresh's digital team at Ministry of Sound, his record label and would like to update his Wikipedia page as it is massively out of date. All of the information I am using is taken from his official biography which will appear on his website. Please let me know specifically what issues you have with the information and what I need to do to get this page updated with this information. DJ Fresh has done so much since the last update so we would really like to give him an accurate representation on here.

Regarding the image, that is an official press shot that we use on all promotional material. As his record label, we have the rights to use this however we want. Again, please let me know what I have to do specifically to get this image on the page.

Thanks for your help, Adrian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumaso31500 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)

Please do not reundo my changes to "Unlocked" again. All the new material is referenced right now.

Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:65:EE28:5946:68EF:F24D:4F9B:7FEE (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

League City, Texas IP

Hi Binksternet, in case your ears start burning, I mentioned you in passing at this ANI report. If you have anything to add, please do. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

Sorry for accidentally having Dick Dale's name censored due to my autocensor filter that I have in my browser.

I wish I could undo without changing any text... Tharthan (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

No sweat! I figured it was something automatic, unintended. Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The discussion is about the topic Metasonix. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes the admins edit war page is better than the vandalism page

I noticed your recent report on the admins vandalism page. I'm following to see what becomes of it. I wouldn't be surprised if it's dismissed there. The admins edit war & 3RR page is a better bet. One reason I hadn't moved to prevent disruption much sooner is that the editor has a large number of positive or at least innocuous edits, so not really a vandal. Since the issue's been brought up on the article's talk page, the repetitive, unexplained, undiscussed edits are an even better candidate for handling at WP:ANEW. Well, let's see what happens. Willondon (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, you win. Willondon (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you were referring to this which ended in a month-long block for the IP. That IP certainly made a lot of good-faith edits, but he was too prone to edit-warring when his trivia additions were reverted, and he never used a talk page. Binksternet (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Alas, many a valiant editor has bitten the dust for complete failure to engage in discussion. Willondon (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

HarveyCarter

Some day I'll learn how to do an SSPI myself. But right now, there's GavinHerlihy. --Scolaire (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Oooh, looking at the edit history, that sock is made obvious. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)