User talk:Binksternet/Archive37

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Intelligent design". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 July 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 02:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"associated with" is vague

there is a discussion at Talk:The Epoch Times. Aaabbb11 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Warning - your reverts are a violation of consensus

Your reverts here [1], [2] with the edit summary that your Rv... indisputable COI shown at COIN. (TW)) is a violation of consensus at COIN. [3] The determination was NO COI. If you revert again, you may be blocked for edit warring in violation of consensus. Atsme^📞📧 01:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see Risker closed the discussion with a supervote rather than assessing the consensus. I would not have reverted had I seen the very surprising close by Risker. Enjoy your victory. Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a victory for me, Binks. When you consider the scrutiny those articles went through to be promoted to GA and FA, it was a victory for the collaborators, the readers and the project. Some of the footage and photographs we were able to provide to enhance those articles are quite rare. I'm not the hard nosed inflexible editor some think I am. I just want to do the right thing and have the right thing done to me. Hope you had a great 4th of July. Atsme^📞📧 01:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The close was changed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Cutting horse articles

Atsme, I feel like I would have been much happier to work with you had there not been all that brouhaha about Islamophobia, which found us at loggerheads. You're an unusual combination of environmentalist, fish expert, horsewoman and anti-Islamic Crusader. You know, there's a three-time champion cutting horse article that needs to be written: Nigger (cutting horse), owned by Benny Binion. Nobody has had the guts to write it yet, for reasons we can only imagine. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Porter, Willard H. (1976). "El Batidor", The Cattleman volume 63, page 96: "Benny Binion... owned the first champion cutting horse, a gelding named Nigger, who was ridden by George Glascock, a Texas trainer, in 1946 through 1948. For these three consecutive years the black horse was the champ of the National Cutting Horse Association."
• Nye, Nelson Coral (1964). The Complete Book of the Quarter Horse: A breeder's guide and turfman's reference, A. S. Barnes, pp. 110, 116. ""His dam, raised on the Binion ranch in Montana, was a Spanish mare. Old Nigger, as George Glascock calls him, was the result of breeding this mare to the Thorough-bred Band Time (by Band Play)... George Glascock explains: Nigger was never trained for anything but cutting."

Winning three cutting horse championships puts Nigger at the very top of the heap, equal to Meradas Little Sue and Cash Quixote Rio. Hey, that makes three articles needing to be created.

By the way, I'm pulling this material from one of my workpages, a page about a cutting horse named Spaniard, owned by Bill and Betty Simon of Prescott, AZ. Built too big for cutting, Spaniard was so amazingly good as a cutting horse that Betty created a clown act featuring him, and the comedy act was put into the schedule of the largest regional rodeos, in the main arena. As a child, my wife knew Bill & Betty, which is why I am assembling this material. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, Binks - you're talking my language. *lol* Do you remember Amarillo Slim? We bred horses for him when we stood a son of Doc Bar. I actually have a set of drinking glasses with all the old cutting horses etched in the glass. My late husband trained and worked with Poco Bueno, and rode Cutter Bill back in the day. I would be absolutely honored to collaborate with you. I actually met Bill Shatner through the cutting horse business. Heck, now that I'm outed, I guess there's no reason I can't upload some of the photos. (PS: I'm not anti-Islamic, I'm anti-terrorism and that includes little old ladies chasing after me with their canes). Let me know if you'd like to collaborate. I've got some of the old original photos, too. You won't believe what I've got at the ranch. It would be too much fun. You gave me goosebumps!! Atsme^📞📧 05:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Uh oh, Binks...am I going to be faced with another COI situation if I collaborate on this? [4]

If you cite newspapers, magazines and books you'll be fine. Or other people's websites. Stuff that you didn't have a hand in creating. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Lucky for me, the Prescott Courier has a lot of its archives digitized and available online, which helps flesh out my workpage: User:Binksternet/Bill Simon Betty Simon Spaniard.

The qhd.com website is a neutral source. Meradas Little Sue has a page there. The mare was sold for a record-breaking price, according to Mid-South Horse Review, another neutral source. Pages like this can help, and copies of Daily Chatter, published by the NCHA. Lots of newspapers cover rodeo results. A few books have been written on the subject, as I'm sure you know. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Goshes, I had a collection of Chatters that dated back to when the NCHA first started publishing. We had them stored out in the barn and over time, they just deteriorated. They went to the trash during spring clean-up a few years ago, but I have friends who have some serious collections. So will the first horse in the "legends" series be Spaniard? I will be back in the States at the end of this month and will be able to start digging up info. I have my hands full with a few other things right now so the timing couldn't be more perfect. What if I start a page in my sandbox and add an outline? We could probably even start with an article like, "Cutting horse legends", and devote a section to each horse that we could spin-off from provided we can find the sources? Atsme^📞📧 09:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I took a look around today to see what has already been written on Wikipedia, and there are some gaps to fill! Of course there is Cutting (sport), American Quarter Horse and National Cutting Horse Association. The American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame article has a list of famous horses such as Cutter Bill and Poco Bueno, and a list of people in the field; but they emphasize racing horses. Even so, the layout may serve as a model for us. I think there should be a list article of National Cutting Horse Association champions by year, the list beginning with the first official competition in 1946. Another list article to contemplate is a list of famous cutting horses, fame not dependent on winning NCHA championships. The cutting horse list(s) would need to have a column for breed, as not every famous cutting horse was a quarter horse.

I will start one or more stub articles about individual horses; you can expand those if you wish, and you can work on assembling a list article of your choosing. I will help you with that once you determine the contents. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed, and thank you for all you do, Bink. Atsme^📞📧 16:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten, and still just as excited. Had to get a few issues out of the way and now have a clear mind but limited time for at least another week. When I get back to Texas, I'll start uploading historic photos. Atsme^📞📧 03:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nor have I. There are a few pots simmering on my back burner but when I get the motivation I will create some of these cutting horse articles. It always makes me feel good to put new articles into circulation; when I first started editing Wikipedia I was doing a lot more of that. These days most of my edits are reversions of poor work by others – an unrewarding task. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Well, for relaxation, the GM/Streetcar page could ue a look....Anmccaff (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Binks - I'm in Texas. I took a quick snapshot of the Glascock's horse etched in glass, and would love for you to see it. I certainly don't want to get in trouble for offending anyone and right now I'm being heavily stalked. What do you think? Atsme^📞📧 23:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You could upload the image to Commons, but it would be better if you waited until the horse article was already written, so that if an administrator at Commons was offended by the horse's name, he or she would be able to look at where the image was being used, to see that there really was a famous horse named Nigger. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Good plan. I also have historic photos of the great foundation sires like Traveler, Three Oh's, Bar Bob, Little Richard by Old Sorrel, Hired Hand, Wimpy, Depth Charge, Assault, and Poco Bueno, the sire who made cutting horse history when his daughters were crossed on Doc Bar. Atsme^📞📧 00:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Clearly this will all work out well, proving that where there's a wills, there's a way. Anmccaff (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• LOL* I will seek further advice when the time comes for any disclosures that may be necessary before I add any photos or prose. Also wanted to mention that I have original photos of Poco Lena, a cutting horse legend, and the only two foals she had before she died - Doc Olena and Dry Doc. They made history. I'm also looking for photos of Benny to go with the horse article. How absolutely exciting! Atsme^📞📧 00:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

July 2015.

How about this. Changing content. Hasn't Happened. Further clarifying an inaccuracy in the source has. The Grammar may have not been perfect but the (2000s) and word formation clearly do not go together. If someone clicks metalcore they will see the foundation isn't in the (2000s) so how is that helpful to the article. Again? Im not seeing how it is. "(2000s)" is not sourced neither is "(90s)" do you like things accurate or do you want to split hairs or own the page? CombatMarshmallow (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Also it is now on the talk Page of the Article. Go ahead and participate.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Response to: "Hello, I'm Binksternet. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Maniac (song), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)." I didn't provide a "reliable source" as there was a link to the performance listing (World Idol) clearly clicking on that link would have shown that the song was sung on that occasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.96.240 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

My explanation was this: "Rv per WP:SONGCOVER... non-notable performance cover version." A performance of a song on World Idol does not automatically make that performance notable. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

V and CrypticRock

This website has a review on Maroon 5's album V. The description of this review says that V is "filled with various styles ranging from Electronic, to Dance, to Pop, and Alternative Rock." I have a couple questions. 1: Is this site reliable at all and 2. If it is, does this count as a genre description or are these "styles" not credible to add to the genre section of V? --RandomChoiceForMe (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC) User:RandomChoiceForMe

It appears you are talking about this review by Aaron Chinn, who has no known expertise on the topic. He has written only two reviews for Cryptic Rock. I don't see anything about Cryptic Rock that makes it more reliable than the user-posted reviews at Sputnik, which are not considered reliable for music articles. I would say don't use this review. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Tommy James & Shondells reversal

1) The removal message reminded of a robotic response. 2) Other listed genres haven't any sources as well, yet stay there. 3) If anything, import from AllMusic: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/tommy-james-the-shondells-mn0000520975 - and remove garage altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjelli (talk • contribs) 03:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The AllMusic prose review says "bubblegum pop" for the first years, and generally pop rock, but not garage. (The sidebar says "Psychedelic/Garage" but we don't use AllMusic sidebar genres as they have been shown to be disconnected to the prose reviews.) I agree with you that garage should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CharltonChiltern

You will need to open an SPI case about this, it is not obvious sockpuppetry to me. If you know any admins familiar with the long-term abuser maybe they could help, but I've settled on a 24-hour edit warring block. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's obvious to me. I will show the connection. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that an SPI should be filed. Mkdw^talk 16:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to fast work by Bbb23, the case was CU'd and finished before I could even give evidence. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

No Gun Ri

Hello,

Hope you're doing well. I am currently engaged in a lengthy dispute resolution process over at No Gun Ri Massacre, which has seen a very heated debate between Cjhanley and WeldNeck which has seethed for years.

Part of it revolves around a sourcing dispute, namely, the credibility of the U.S. No Gun Ri Review Report, the initial AP reports (particularly the credibility of certain eyewitnesses), and of historian Robert Bateman. In general, the page has been a battleground, with frequent personal attacks, accusations of POV, bold edits against consensus, and so on, although it has calmed down as of late. It is important to note that Cjhanley is in fact one of the AP reporters who initially broke the No Gun Ri story, and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize; also, WeldNeck has accused him of a conflict of interest. Both editors have compiled extensive lists of their grievances, and have dragged one another to ANI: [5][6][7][8][9] WeldNeck also attacked Cjhanley as a sockpuppeteer: [10]. Neither editor is blameless, to say the least.

For some time, I, along with Timothyjosephwood, Wikimedes, and Irondome have attempted to mediate, and we have successfully imposed an unofficial "freeze" on editing the page without prior proposals. While the situation is not urgent, I would appreciate any help an experienced editor such as yourself could offer. If you are interested, I can also provide some sources to provide background, although some can also be found on the page's external links category. I'm happy to talk on either my talk page or yours.

Thanks very much,

GAB (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

To perhaps entice you further, I'll note that Larry Levine is a key guy in the No Gun Ri story. He's not named in the article at the moment, but that can be fixed. Seriously, help is needed from coolheaded editors who, without deep background, can nonetheless apply common sense as they listen, read and assess. Thanks. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, both of you. When I get the time I will go over there and take a look, then express my opinion, make some observations. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually it looks the conflict has calmed down. Weldneck protested one source today but another source was quickly found to replace it. The article is on my watchlist so if something flares up again I will see it. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Pixies / Noise

Just wondering why you erased my correction of adding Pixies to noise bands. It's because there are too many examples? Otherwise I don't know why, Because Pixies are clearly a Noise Band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocowainfeld (talk • contribs) 05:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You say "clearly" a noise band but the article we have on the Pixies lists other genres as primary ones, not noise. This leads me to think that they are not primarily noise. Binksternet (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are most very welcome, tom martin

RRFWTommartin (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Cute little predator... Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PIAS Recordings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PIAS. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Proto-Djent

Hello, I am here to discuss my that Proto-Djent is a real genre. I made the page to clearly categorize pioneers of Djent and Djent bands of today for these two groups have a far different sound. Blackmetalisdead (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Proto-djent is simply that which leads to djent. It's not its own genre. If you want to write about whatever leads to djent, then go to the djent article. Don't create a new article. Binksternet (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

High and Dry

It's not a cover version, it's probably the first time the song was ever played live by Thom York. You shouldn't have reverted the edit. --Kiwi (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I self-reverted after your note made me realize my error. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hoax Stairway to Heaven claim

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know how or where to report this but saw your name on the article Talk page. There is a bogus note in the "Stairway to Heaven" article, which has also been recycled in other articles. In the reference section, Note 21, there is a statement attributed to Guitar World which claims:

Guitar World Magazine, April 1997: "California's most enduring legacy may well be the fingerpicked acoustic theme of the song "Taurus," which Jimmy Page lifted virtually note for note for the introduction to "Stairway to Heaven."

The note makes no reference to page number or author of the source. A few weeks ago I purchased the April 1997 edition of Guitar World (with Aerosmith on the cover), and cannot find that statement anywhere in that issue. I suspect it is a bogus claim. I recently contacted Guitar World magazine and they haven't been able to locate the quote. TipOffTim (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me when you were wondering about this stuff. I treat a whiff of a hoax like a new chew toy!

I looked through the editing history of the Wikipedia articles about Stairway to Heaven, Taurus (instrumental), Spirit (Spirit album), Spirit (band) and Randy California. What I found was that, across all the related articles, the first editor to bring in the Guitar World reference was Mark Rizo who first started editing Wikipedia in 2006 but has only made two edits in 2015. He mostly writes about video engineering topics; hardly anything about rock bands or music. Regarding "Stairway to Heaven", in January 2007 Mark Rizo added the words "almost exactly the same, note for note",[11] based on the Guitar World magazine reference he introduced. He provided a quote from the magazine: "California's most enduring legacy may well be the fingerpicked acoustic theme of the song 'Taurus,' which Jimmy Page lifted virtually note for note for the introduction to 'Stairway to Heaven.'"

I can believe your story about buying a back issue of Guitar World from April 1997 and not finding the quote. The cover of the magazine doesn't say anything about Spirit or Led Zeppelin or Randy California or Jimmy Page.[12] A website with back issues for sale mentions some of the contents and again there's nothing.[13] However, in an online discussion group named Smirkenchicken, a guy named shoepolish appears to have quoted the magazine in a May 2005 post.[14] I have taken bits and pieces of shoepolish's quote such as "Spirit were unreconstructed eclectics" and searched the web for any supporting echoes, but there's nothing like that quote anywhere else online.

So it appears that Mark Rizo found the quote somewhere online in 2007, maybe from shoepolish's post, and added it to Wikipedia. I hope to hear from Mark Rizo to see what he says about the quote. At this point, though, enough doubt is cast on the reference to remove it from all of Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bink. TipOffTim (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Keeping track of Ohio–North Carolina Gorillaz disruption

A joint disruption spanning Ohio and North Carolina has been going on for a few months, with the disruption using various IPs to put "best of" claims into articles having to do with the band Gorillaz. The contributions are characterized by poor grammar and sloppy typing with stray characters. Sometimes the claims can be researched and backed up by sources, and sometimes the claims are accompanied by a bare URL in the text or the edit summary. Even with a bare URL, the claims can have severe problems with integration.[15] The persistence of this person has carried him past 3RR a few times, which is why the article about "Demon Days" was semi-protected by Ceradon.

Target articles

• Gorillaz (album)
• Demon Days
• Plastic Beach
• Feel Good Inc.
• Clint Eastwood (song)
• Dare (song)
• On Melancholy Hill

IP addresses

• NC April 13 – 184.39.11.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC April 20 – 74.235.51.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC June 10 – 74.235.128.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC June 11 – 74.235.134.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC June 15 – 74.235.131.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC June 16 – 184.39.8.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC June 25 – 74.235.32.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC July 1 – 184.39.5.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• OH July 5 – 104.240.179.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• OH July 6 – 104.169.93.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• OH July 7 – 192.182.173.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• OH July 11 – 50.41.227.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC July 13 – 45.53.247.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC July 14–15 – 184.39.10.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC July 15 – 162.247.201.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC July 16 – 162.247.201.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC July 17 – 162.247.201.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC July 24 – 74.235.32.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC July 24 – 162.247.201.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC July 24 – 162.247.201.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC July 25 – 74.235.50.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC July 27 – 184.39.10.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC August 3 – 74.235.139.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• NC August 4–5 – 74.235.136.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• August – Kobe24ny (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

These are the sorts of additions he makes

• NC "Spin magazine ranked it at number 297 on its list of greatest albums of the past 30 years."[16][17]
• NC "Pitchfork media ranked it at 152 on the top 200 songs of the decade so far. Number 9 on pongsocket.com's list of best songs of 2010. 92 on jongmusic.com list of 100 best songs of 2010."[18]
• NC "At the website besteveralbum.com it is ranked number 141 on the greatest albums ever. Ranked number 98 on NME.com list of 100 greatest albums of the 2000's. Ranked at 43 on Complex.com 100 greatest albums of the complex decade."[19]
• NC "Complex magazine ranked it at 93 on its list off 100 greatest albums of the 2000's. NME ranked it at number 98 on its list of 100 greatest albums of the 2000's. It is one of the top 200 most acclaimed albums ever at the website bestalbumsever.com"[20]
• OH "Ranked number 96 in slant magazines list of best albums of the 2000s, and included in 1001 albums you must hear before you die until the most recent issue."[21]
• OH "Antiquiet.com listed it at 47 on their list of best albums of the 2000s. http://antiquiet.com/music/2010/01/best-albums-of-the-decade/. Spin magazine ranked it as one of the top 300 albums of the past 30 years."[22]
• OH "complex magazine ranked it as the 28th best album of the 2000s. Weekly top 40 ranked it as the 41st best album of the 2000s."[23]
• NC "It was included in many list of best albums of the 2000s by complex, nme, reedit, and many others. spin magazine named it one of the top albums of the past 30 years."[24]

Out of frustration at being reverted so much, he has lashed out in his edit summaries: "fuck blinksternet" and fuck blinksternet for deleting correct info". IP 184.39.10.151 was blocked by NeilN for disruption but the person evaded the block by using 162.247.201.156 and 162.247.201.120.

All of this is obviously done in good faith, representative of a fan who really likes the band and wants to make sure they get the best coverage. However there is a deep problem with competence – this is someone who is unable to work with English to the degree needed to write an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding two. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding one. Binksternet (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding one. Binksternet (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding two. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the guy has registered an account, Kobe24ny, so he's legit now, but still with competency problems. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

66.50.14.12 is at it again

66.50.14.12 is at it again. This time, he removed the territories for the Hall & Oates songs Rich Girl and Private Eyes. I just got finished undoing the edits by restoring the respective territories for the B-Side songs. I just thought that I would let you know. I am hoping that something can be done about this anonymous editors disruptive and troublemaking antics. Thanks in advance for looking into this and hopefully, that something can be done about this editors negative activities. Frschoonover (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of his edits are okay. I will keep an eye peeled for the ones that are not. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, I had to undo his removals of the respective territories for the aforementioned songs by Hall & Oates. The thing is that at times, the B-Sides can be different in other countries/territories and that is why I put the respective countries/territories to tell them apart where the singles B-Side songs are different. I am hoping that he doesn't remove them again from those articles. I will check back tomorrow and if that anonymous editor removes them again, I will let you know. Thanks again. Frschoonover (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Collapse of the World Trade Center

Hello Binksternet, My apologies, I meant to thank you for your edit - not revert it. I'm going to sit in a darkened room for a while. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Heh heh... You made me smile. Best! Binksternet (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Alrasheed?

Hi Bink, I reported some Saudi IPs a while back because they were acting like a-holes. I thought maybe you might take a look at their pattern to see if they might be related to your Alrasheed sock problem. They seemed to be focused on the article Radioland Murders, changing Star A to Star B, then making changes to these stars' articles to reflect the lie. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It's the same guy. What waste of time this kind of disruption causes. Grrr. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I just blocked one: 5.156.170.242 Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop false accusation

You wrote my talk page that I did violation of wiki rule the neutral point of view policy. But you entirely wrong. What I wrote were all truth. Not violation. What you said is nothing more than the blackmail against truthness.

--はぐれがらす (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The photos which Chinese Goverment uses as the photos of Nankikng Incident at their museum has turned out to be false but the Japanese victims by Chinese Army at Tungchow Incident including that one. Didn't you know that? Or though you knew the Chinese Goverment fake yet you protest them?

--はぐれがらす (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It will not be long before your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude wins you a permanent block. The right-wing Japanese nationalist revisionist activity on Wikipedia, which you are part of, is not going to get any kind of sympathetic coverage, let alone get its fringe views set in place as if they were mainstream views. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You cannot even counter argue on the details of discussions so you just simple use of stereotypical label and blackmail. Before you be scabby, just be unbiassed.

--はぐれがらす (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I could expend the energy to debate you but since I expect you to be blocked permanently very soon, there's no good reason for me to waste effort. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Then please show your energy. I'm very curious how American understand this issues, just stereotipical or not. At present, you are just a mouth.

--はぐれがらす (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Poltergeist article

I hope I'm doing this right.

The remake of "Poltergeist" won a number of mildly positive reviews. Even the negative reviews concede that the film is well made and has good special effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.143.159 (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

To me, it looks like the reviews are not mildly positive but generally negative, with more important aspects panned or dismissed. The film was seen as unnecessary, not an improvement on the original story. Good special effects cannot save a film that has serious problems. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The anthem house thingy

I created the anthem house text on the progressive house page because there has been a lot of mislabeling through the years. A lot of stuff which isn't progressive house gets called progressive house just because some of those producers used to produce progressive house and because of beatport labeling everything under progressive house or even trance. I created the anthem house thing to correct people on it. Oh and yes, anthem/epic house is definitely a genre, Iskur for example, mentioned it in his guide from years back. So please, let me atleast put it there, it might stop atleast some people calling Garrix or Avicii stuff progressive house.. and I don't know if you're into progressive house or trance, but whatever genre of music you're into, I bet that if some artist comes with a song/track and calls it the genre you love while it isn't even that genre, I know, you would hate that. User:HugoHak — Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

If you create an article for Anthem house, and it is well-referenced, with more than just Iskur, then a brief section about anthem house can be put into the house article. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will work on it :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoHak (talk • contribs) 17:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edits to the Bay Area Rapid Transit article

I object to your deletion of the following paragraph from the article on BART:

Within the United States, BART is very similar in character to the Washington Metro, which opened 4 years after BART and likewise features outdoor, suburban stations in addition to underground, closely spaced urban stations, with the latter receiving more frequent service than the former. Like BART, the Washington Metro's fares are based on the distance traveled, and the system also uses similar magnetic stripe paper farecards that riders insert into faregates at entry and exit. In many ways, BART resembles the S-Bahn train systems of numerous German cities, or the Paris RER system. Like those networks, BART has a number of mostly-underground stations in the center of an urban core and runs service out to suburban areas following a specific schedule.[citation needed]

I wrote much of the section comparing BART to the Paris RER or to the S-Bahn in Germany. This section is comparative and informative. My point in this section was to explain BART's unique hybrid nature in the USA, which makes it closely resemble those European transit systems. I think a comparative approach here is quite useful to explain the character of this system, which falls somewhere between traditional commuter rail and subway. If you're going to delete this section, I insist that you explain your objections to it. If you bring up the fact that it had a "citation needed" tag to it, I'm going to have to disagree with an edit based on that reasoning. There is no specific reference I can cite other than my own observation, but I've lived in the Bay Area and in Paris, and have spent significant time on the S-Bahn in Germany, so this is based on concrete observations I've made of all three transit systems.

Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mole2 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Mole2 (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Informative, yes. However, your writing was not based on previously published material, published by reliable sources. That makes your writing original research, which is not allowed. If you can point to this kind of analysis in the published literature on BART then by all means return the paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine. It's good original research, and I have a Ph.D. in a related subject, but I'll leave it off until I can source it. Mole2 (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe Vuchic would provide a ready cite for this. Anmccaff (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

On another note, your last cleanup rounded some of the ridership numbers strangely. Why round 568,061 to 570,000? Why not just to 568,000? I totally agree with you that there was an over-precise level of detail on these numbers, but I'd have rounded differently.Mole2 (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you are talking about this set of changes by an IP editor Special:Contributions/71.128.35.13 who geolocates to Fremont, out of the county of Alameda's GSA office. I agree that IP editor has a strange notion of rounding. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Yes, sorry, I got two sets of discrete edits confused. I don't know that it's worth reverting, but it seemed off to me. My apologies for confusing you with Mr. Fremont GSA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mole2 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing

OK. Like look, Why are you people on Wikipedia have to be so strict and mean to me? I was only trying to help. PS I want to know how to put alternative covers in music album articles. Thealejandro13 (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible return of andrewbf?

Hello there! I am wondering if this IP could be the return of andrewbf to the house music page (and others) - 201.163.236.162

Some revisions that seem very characteristic of that editor.

(Etheldavis (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC))

It's him. Same location in Mexico, same activity. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I award this barnstar for the massive work you've done cleaning up after Legolas2186. Your effort should be more widely known. Without your work both Wikipedia and those that use it would be much worse off! :bloodofox: (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Why, thank you! I appreciate your taking notice, it warms me – keeps me motivated. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn

Hi Binksternet thanks for your note -- I came across the video on Haaretz, a major Israeli newspaper, in an article profiling the candidate. What do you think about re-adding the text with this reference? http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.666966 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.111.120 (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's still not good enough. Any source that starts off with the headline adjective "Loony" describing a person is not going to be taken seriously. What's needed is measured, careful analysis. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I do think it's significant so if it's just a question of headlines -- hoe about these from the Telegraph and Belfast Telegraph? These are some dry titles

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11749043/Andrew-Gilligan-Jeremy-Corbyn-friend-to-Hamas-Iran-and-extremists.html

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour-hopeful-jeremy-corbyns-links-to-sinn-fein-hamas-and-hezbollah-31391409.html

Yes, those are good. You can use them. Binksternet (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:SONGCOVER

Thanks for the pointer to WP:SONGCOVER (on Just in Time). Those long lists of cover versions have always bothered me but I didn't have a policy to justify removing them. Kendall-K1 (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. Note that the SONGCOVER guideline from the Songs WikiProject is much more limiting than most would expect; as you have probably noticed, quite a few people out there think that a song article should list every single cover version that has ever been performed or recorded, which is seen in the extensive lists that accumulate over time. There has been thoughtful resistance to the SONGCOVER guideline by experienced editors, but no proposal has changed the guideline itself, to loosen its grip. (See these discussions: 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015.) A couple of song articles continue to host this kind of larger, more inclusive list per local consensus, despite SONGCOVER. Binksternet (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my little slip up! It was on purpose btw..l

Hey!

Yeah so I added a dumb little phrase to see if people actually pay attention to Wikipedia pages and correct irrelevent as well as useless phrases. You have officially passed my stupid little test and increased my trust in Wikipedia. Hope you have an incredible day! Unphyxable UNPHYXABLE (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 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 Review essay: Nick-D on sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in 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) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Fasoli ahmad

I encountered some intentionally incorrect edits today, and they led me to Fasoli ahmad. I saw that you had somehow connected him to Long-term abuse/Thomas.alrasheed, and I wanted to let you know that it looks to be the same person making edits as Contributions/95.186.174.192. I'm not sure quite what to do about this, and I'm slammed at work today, but I thought I'd share that just in case you've got time to take this to the proper admins, boards, etc. Cheers —jameslucas (" " / +) 19:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, that's the same guy. Binksternet (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Clapton

I'm concerned about your complete removal of the section regarding Clapton's comments in support of one of the UK's most controversial ever politicians. If undue weight is the problem, surely reduction is the answer, not a complete airbrushing of this much-documented episode in Clapton's career? Rodericksilly (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's discuss this at the article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be quite a bit of discussion about it already on the Clapton Talk Page, with even someone suggesting that it should be in the lede. It needs mentioning in the body of the article, not least because it's widely acknowledged as being the action which prompted Rock Against Racism. Rodericksilly (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Coconut (song)

I am having a problem with another particular editor. The editor is Nikkimaria. The problem is on the page regarding the Harry Nilsson song Coconut. She keeps removing it's appearance on The Muppet Show, alongside the source that proves and cites it's appearance, which is the Muppet Wiki article about the song. She says, in her opinion, that the source is not reliable, but I feel, in my opinion, that it is, as it shows that it did appear. The article is encyclopedic and it does point out that the song did appear on The Muppet Show and the number of the episode that it appeared in. Here it is for you to look at and see what I am trying to convince the editor of:

http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Coconut

How can this particular editor be convinced that this source is reliable and proves that it did appear on the show? Plus, those who edit on Muppet Wiki, such as myself, work hard to keep the articles accurate, reliable and to the point. I don't want to risk an editing war as editing wars are against Wikipedia rules and policies as they can get Wikipedia editor into trouble. The only other thing that I can cite as a source is the YouTube video that has the performance of the song Coconut, but that would violate Wikipedia's rules and policies in regards to copyrights. If you know of a way to convince this particular editor that the Muppet Wiki article on Coconut is accurate, reliable, encyclopedic and to the point, please share and hopefully, this particular editor will be convinced and also, to stay on good terms with them. Thanks in advance for any help that you can give. Your help is truly appreciated.Frschoonover (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I can see that the Muppet Wikia has no cited sources, which greatly reduces its reliability for Wikipedia. I can also see by way of Youtube that the song was most certainly covered by Muppets – there's no doubt about that. The problem about saying this at the song article is that it's not shown to be important. You need to find WP:SECONDARY sources that have commented on it. Perhaps this bit from Henson.com would qualify, though it's not really separated from the Muppets, and thus a primary source.

You should start a discussion on the song's talk page, so that other editors might help you find secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) You might try this source Frschoonover. It is a WP:SECONDARY one though I don't know if it qualifies as a WP:RS. Of the 1000 things I love and miss about The Muppet Show their covers of various songs ranks right at the top. MarnetteD|Talk 17:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I just provided the Henson website as a secondary source and I am hoping that it doesn't get undone again. If it does, I'll let you's know. Thanks again.Frschoonover (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

That editor, Nikkimaria, undid the edit again. This is the editor's reason:

"(1) user-generated wiki is still not a reliable source (2) an episode transcript is not a secondary source"

This person is, IMHO, becoming impossible. What can I do next to try to convince this editor, who I feel is being unreasonable, that the Henson.com link is a good secondary source? As stated previously, any help is appreciated. Thanks very much.Frschoonover (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You will have to give up on the Muppet Wikia link. That's probably the sticking point, and you have no leverage there, because it is not a reliable source. If you feel strongly otherwise, you should poll the regulars at WP:RSN to see what they say. Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Adult contemporary vandal IP user

Will you keep an eye of this long-term vandal IP 71.166.99.169 who’s focused for Mariah Carey, Freddie Jackson, Celine Dion and others. If this IP is still not active, there's also another 71.166 IP range or any same editing IP range. Destiny Leo (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'll keep an eye out. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Electropop

I pinged you elsewhere about an SPI, but does an infobox need a thousand genres? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No it does not; that bit was from Geatx, and I would not have wanted it had I looked at it. I was simply reverting the Mexican IPs which are Andrewbf. When I get a moment I will put the recent IPs into a report at SPI, for the record. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That always makes it easier for schmucks like me. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood article edits - July 2015

@Anythingyouwant: With regard to your 2014-07-27 edit to Planned Parenthood reverting the previous edit generally refining and improving upon this section in line with what Sanger wrote, in the summary of which you stated: "nobody says Sanger was promoting sex... People were already having sex! Sanger was promoting birth control" --- have you ever troubled to read Sanger?? I'm afraid that you are mistaken (except for the part about "People were already having sex!") In any event, the text you reverted didn't say that she was "promoting sex" as you suggest, but read: "to promote birth control to allow women to engage in sex without fear of conception (emphasis added), which is straight out of Sanger, even if PP advocates would possibly prefer that it wasn't. Perhaps you should take look at both Sanger's writings and Wikipedia:POV, if you wish to constructively contribute to discussions of Sanger in Wikipedia articles. --- Professor JR (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia respects WP:SECONDARY sources far more than primary or tertiary sources. Sanger's own writings are not going to be interpreted by you for our readers, especially when you try to portray her in a bad light. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Kid_and_his_friends_with_zero_knowledge_of_a_topic_keep_harassing_me_a_72_yr_old. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

HarveyCarter

[25] Looks like there is a new kid on the block, not knowing the blocked editor wondered if you might take a look.

Coulter buildings

Yes she was the architect of bright angel lodge. I work at at the hopi house and I am no seasonal employee, I have been there for 6 years now and there is a timeline of all her buildings upstairs. There are books on her and all of the books and other sources of information include and do state that she is the architect of bright angel lodge. Do you really think that all those people are wrong including nps? Before you decide to say something, look up the information first. Do your research before saying anything. Come to the south rim of the Grand Canyon national park and you will see for yourself that you are incorrect. Sapphyremoon (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right; I was thinking of El Tovar Hotel which was not designed by Mary Colter. My bad. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Confused by revert?

I'm confused by this revert - as best as I can tell, there was no vandalism by the IP involved, only a switch from the general template to a module? Am I missing something? Thanks! —Luis (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The *only* thing I was doing there was trying to revert Special:Contributions/86.174.161.26 who is a long-term vandal. In this case, he changed away from the musical artist infobox, a change which I don't particularly like but one that I will not defend to the death. Please feel free to rework the article as best suits our readers, ignoring this interference by the vandal and me. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do I bother?

It's a fair enough question. You're the judge- I guess you just have to ask yourself, which is more vandalous, me writing long and detailed, if scarcely varified, accounts of equipment for a handful of semi recognizable musicians, or yourself, eliminating those articles completely for the same reasons, leaving an ugly, incomplete skeleton where there was once informed orginazation. I guess you showed me, yet again, I SHOULDN'T bother. I might as well have been writing detailed descriptions of the various skin flutes these musicians are playing rather than guitars, basses, pedals, amps, cabinets, strings, and picks.

Just for consistancy sake, you might just consider getting rid of or at least petitioning the removal of the majority of musicians gear sections, because a vast majority of them can't REALLY be proven. At least not to your standards, I believe. I mean, who's to say someone's supposed 1970 Stratocaster isn't a 69 or a 71? Do you have the serial number? And even if you did, whose to say they didn't switch the neck? From now on, they played nothing. Didn't happen. It's easier that way.

Just so you know, despite my deep-seeded angry sarcasm, no hard feelings. I'll just try to take my knowledge elsewhere, there's sites like thekingofgear that were built for the specific purpose of covering, in this case, Radiohead and the members' various side projects' tools of the trade, that work just as well. I just tried putting this stuff on Wikipedia because it's the most accesible to others and supposedly the easiest to add to without having to hold some degree. I guess I just figured guys like you, freelance editors, could use your better judgement and determine for yourselves what was and was not worth cracking down on. Most did. You didn't. Thank you for your service.

Questionable regards,

You Know Who

P.S. Don't bother responding, I won't see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.156.15.207 (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You have used three IPs from Foley, Alabama, to add lots of unreferenced or poorly referenced gear information to musician articles: 184.156.15.207, 99.194.142.7 and 184.156.12.197. You posted a previous entry on my talk page last December, but you did not reply. You might consider replying to make this a discussion.

Lots of people add lists of gear, most with no references.[26][27][28][29]

My take on lists of gear is they are not encyclopedic, that they are of interest to a very narrow segment, and that such lists are not needed on Wikipedia as they can be found on specialist websites. The most we should do is provide an external link to such websites.

But this is not Binkipedia; my opinion is not the end of the story. If you feel differently about lists of gear, you ought to team up with Roger Workman who has added to such gear lists in the past, for instance at the Troy Van Leeuwen biography page: [30][31][32][33][34][35] Most of this stuff has references, but it's excessive detail in my opinion. If you coordinate a gear-list-loving group you might be able to convince the Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians to establish a gear section in the standard musician biography style guide. Good luck with that. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring

The article has been under mediation for months, it is disruptive for you to come in and undo all of that. One more time, and I will be forced to report you. == Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion == Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeldNeck (talk • contribs) 18:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

At Talk:No_Gun_Ri_Massacre#Irrelevant_photo, the following editors do not think the photograph is appropriate: Cjhanley, GeneralizationsAreBad, Iryna Harpy and myself. The editors who think the photograph should remain in the article are: You. So it's surprising that you would assess the situation as one where you had consensus on your side.[36] Talk page consensus is clearly against the photo. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I want to work together

I got your notice about the PP article. I don't want to be that editor. I also want to work together to improve the article. However, I don't know a single person who doesn't have a POV on this topic. I am more than willing to work with you, as long as you are willing to work with me. Anything that I thought would be the least bit contentious I did in small chunks and used edit summaries to explain myself. I didn't just do a massive deletion like you did. Think we can work together? --BrianCUA (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think we can work together. Your all-too-apparent aim is to blacken the PP page as part of your pro-life activist stance. Me, I'm just looking out for Wikipedia's readers; I don't have an agenda to push.

That's the main problem you have, which I don't think can be fixed. If you wanted to avoid getting blocked, to adjust your editing style to fit with Wikipedia's policies, the applicable policy you are violating is WP:NPOV. You are editing with the mistaken belief that a minor position has equal footing with a major position. It does not. Which is why you should not edit in a tit-for-tat manner, expecting that fringe groups such as CMP should get equal coverage. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks at least for the consideration and assuming good faith. --BrianCUA (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

MIT Press Journals

You should have received an email a couple of weeks ago regarding MIT Press Journals - could you please either fill out the linked form or let me know if you didn't get the email? We'd like to get these processed soon. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I got it filled out and submitted. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Pete Quaife

Your edit summaries to Pete Quiafe are disingenuous in that you didn't contribute anything with your edits as you suggest - you didn't replace a reference, you removed one and you didn't restore anything - you added "UK" yourself with no explanation and reviewing many other articles on Wikipedia, is against consensus.

Removing UK isn't a political point as one our edit summaries appeared to suggest, it is because it is unncessary and having looked at many articles on Wikipedia there is a general consensus to not add it. There's even the simple fact that it doesn't even fit on the same line, and looks daft.

Also, I notice from your talk page you are often accused of edit warring, and your only contribution to Dave Davies (the article which you first saw me editing on, then preceeded to "review" all my edits) is edit warring over genres. It seems you regularly push your own opinion, when surely Wikipedia isn't about opinion and assume bad faith.

Stfeelip (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Regarding genres, I try to keep genre warriors at bay; when I purposely put a genre into an article it is with reference to a published source. The bit about UK vs England; more than a few editors have come through UK-related articles to remove "English" and add "British", or more usually vice versa. The discussion I've seen on the matter settle for UK generally, if the issue of UK vs England is not important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Anti-communist

see Talk:The_Epoch_Times#Anti-communist

Talk:Like a Virgin (song)#Requested move 4 August 2015

I recently started a move request. --George Ho (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Rise Against

I believe that rise against should be rise against is an american punk rock band not rise against is a american melodic hardcore band.Jg9443 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Why? What published sources support this? Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Amaranthe edits

Hi. I own AZ of power metal. It isn't an imaginary book. Garry Sharpe-Young wrote this book, and is a reputable author of metal-related works. Here, check it out: http://www.amazon.com/Power-Metal-Rockdetector-Garry-Sharpe-Young/dp/1901447138 Vortiene (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. I had jumped to my conclusion after seeing this. What does the Sharpe-Young book say about Amaranthe? Can you quote a passage? Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The main indicator for genres was taken from the MusicMight information as well as Allmusic as previously. A-Z of Power Metal is just a good resource for describing aspects of power metal (was also written in 2003, before Amaranthe existed), and the reason for incorporating it as a reference was to clarify why the band is sometimes considered power metal despite many other stylings, in accordance with the description gave by Elize in her quote. Within A-Z of power metal, it discusses main aspects of the genre in general, which align with this description. A simple quote from the foreword of the book "Power Metal is Heavy Metal taken to the absolute limit. When the major Metal institutions staked their claim, they engendered a legion of up-and-coming followers, who took the genre in a new, extreme direction. Riffs became labyrinthine, vocals scorched higher altitudes—and they even managed to crank out some more volume." I don't mind if power metal isn't included in the main genres (that's not really the point of my edits, it's just a side effect of the classifications MusicMight have for the band), I just want to have a reasonable explanation about why their style is sometimes likened to power metal in the musical style section. This will probably ward off genre warriors who want to add/remove certain genres in the future. It seems I was synthesizing though, so I'm not really worried about the end-result, if it is removed, etc. MusicMight definitely is a reliable source, as it was formed by a team hired by Garry Sharpe-Young back in the day. Now the site isn't updated since Garry died in 2010, but it remains quite reliable for metal-related classifications on bands that existed prior to 2010 due to the expertise of Garry. Vortiene (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, thanks for maintaining the article, it has a lot of genre-contention. Again I'm not really concerned about the genre, just want to find reliable sources for the genre so people will find less need to argue about it. First source I could think of other than allmusic was musicmight. Vortiene (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about Yung Gleesh article

How are Yung Gleesh and Yung Lean not associated they made a song together--TheWikiEditor2000 (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You can read the instructions at Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts. It says one song is not enough. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ok thank you for the help--TheWikiEditor2000 (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Kindly undo

Thank you for your vigilance in fighting spam on Wikipedia. I completely share your disgust for the practice and for those who engage in it. I believe you are misunderstanding why I posted the links I posted and are letting that misperception color your judgment of their appropriateness. If you will look at the links you will see that they are not only appropriate but also add significant value to the subjects and are thus a worthy contribution to Wikipedia--and completely and properly within Wikipedia's external links policy. I am not advertising or promoting anything, just pointing readers to another valuable resource in keeping with the spirit and mission of Wikipedia. I hear what you are saying about the nofollow tags--I have no interest in that and I don't understand why you mention it other than it helps me to see where you are coming from. And I guess I can see WHY you are coming from that place; you have no doubt fended off dozens of spammers, and, again, that is an effort I appreciate. I, however, am not one of them. Kindly revert the edits so that the links are again available to readers. Knowledgelibrary (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope, not buying it. From the first moment you registered your account on Wikipedia you posted links to things involving Eric Wrobbel, the first one a 45 rpm record of Eric singing with two other boys on a forgettable gospel song, the record played on collected vintage players.[37] It's obvious you are trying to promote Eric Wrobbel the collector, and I'm not on board with that. You are not here to build the encyclopedia; it's my guess you are here for less magnanimous reasons. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Insults have no place in these discussions. Calling music made by children "forgettable," throwing the word "spamming" and "promotion" around, and casting aspersions on people's motives ("less than magnanimous")--these are insults. I ask you again: rather than perfunctorily pigeonholing my efforts here as unworthy, look to the facts and to your heart and restore these links. Knowledgelibrary (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

By "forgettable" I was pointing out how unencyclopedic the song was, how inappropriate it was to provide a link to it, as the song was not at all important to Terry Haskins' career, which was mainly political. Haskins, Wrobbel and the other kid did not make a hit record with that recording. At best it's a curio, not a significant part of his life. We are writing encyclopedia articles here, focusing on the important points, so it's not suitable. To me, the video looked more like a chance to show off vintage collector phonographs than anything else. I don't see why Wikipedia needs to be recruited to feather Wrobbel's reputation as a collector. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It is understood what you meant. You express very clearly here a POV as an arbiter of what is important and what is not--and use insulting language and loaded words ("spamming") on others who may see things a different way. This is akin to bullying. It is quite clear that your focus here is not on the facts but rather on guessing at people's motivations, then finding them "less than magnanimous" in your words, and aggressively dispatching their efforts. If not, then why all the focus on and speculation about the motivations of others? Is that relevant? Does that fixation not call into question what may be motivating you? Knowledgelibrary (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

So if I don't measure up to your standard for arbiter, you can ask other people on Wikipedia, for instance at WP:ANI or at WP:Village pump. You might get a more sympathetic hearing. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is saying you don't "measure up." Can you not resist these loaded words and this fixation on trying to read people's minds and ascribe to them evil intent? And no, I am not interested in pursuing argument for argument's sake. Not only do I find it a waste of time, but it is against Wikipedia policy on these talk pages (by the way, your inflammatory language has violated the spirit of that policy several times today in your communications with me). What does NOT violate Wikipedia's policies on External Links or anything else are the links you deleted. If I were to follow your example, I would be inundating you with guesses/bullying accusations/attempted mind readings and the like stating as if fact why you pigeonhole, insult, and marginalize me. I will not. But I suggest YOU have a look at you, and have a close look in the mirror to examine just who is "promoting" what. Knowledgelibrary (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Grouping (firearms)

Hello! Your submission of Grouping (firearms) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some one slight issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! w.carter-Talk 21:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit at No Gun Ri Massacre

Hello Binksternet. I am puzzled by this edit [38] at No Gun Ri Massacre. Cjhanley's proposal has been opposed by Weldneck and apparently supported by you, but the majority of interested editors have not weighed in yet, so the proposed edit is currently both controversial and without consensus. If this were all, I might have just reverted and asked you to wait until there was consensus for an edit, but the edit also removed the three paragraphs that were just agreed upon in Talk:No_Gun_Ri_Massacre#Proposed_edit:_Background_1. I'm fairly certain that Cjhanley's proposal was to replace the text following these 3 paragraphs, and not to change these three paragraphs (I could be wrong). Would you be so kind as to self-revert and get consensus on the talking page before making the change? (I may not be weighing in on this, so adjust your quorum sensors accordingly.)--Wikimedes (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I self-reverted, after seeing that I removed the previously agreed-upon material. Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and good luck.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive#30_July_2015 I think you have not seen my comments because of the archiving? Jomlini (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I got the same message, and I have responded at Jomlini's talk page. Scolaire (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Claypool's instructions

Bink doesn't stay abreast with current news concerning Primus band(psychedelic viking music). His attitude lacks the ability to understand, at first sight. Blair3973 (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

There are two points of context you probably missed. The first one is that a new user told us that Claypool instructed his July 20 audience to come to Wikipedia and change the genre to something ridiculous.[39] The second point you probably don't know about is the subsequent sockpuppet investigation I started which resulted in three longstanding Claypool-connected accounts being blocked as sockpuppets: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dollallama/Archive. Between them the accounts had many years of good contribution records but they blew it on the issue of "funk metal" genre, and now they are all blocked because of Claypool's meddling. Note that Wikipedia is mainly based on WP:SECONDARY sources, which means that Claypool cannot dictate the genre of his music. So if you want to keep contributing to Wikipedia, don't try to implement Claypool's July 20 instructions. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Proxy

You have made wrong reverts, I didn't even knew that I was using a proxy. 216.177.129.53 was removing all edits of User:GorgeCustersSabre, I just inserted them back. Because you have rollback, can you revert your reverts of my edits back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.185.62 (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have rollback, but I will look into this matter. Binksternet (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Recess (song)

Beatport is a music player. Is genre tag reliable? 115.164.89.9 (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

They are not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. I think their genre categorization should not be considered reliable. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, I'm Rystheguy. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Marilyn Manson without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The content you removed was properly referenced. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Shot grouping

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Luke Bryan

You changed Luke Bryan back to Country music, but what about Florida Georgia Line? Their page says they are Bro-country. --98.183.184.171 (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ghazlan-airplanes

I see you've just posted a warning on this user's talk page. This SPI may interest you: [40] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Cover stub as advertizing?

Norland Wind

More importantly, this isn't PD stuff by our old friend "anon"; words Violet Jacob and the music Jim Reid - that's the meat of the subject, not the "background" ...and -the- canonical version of it is Cilla and Artie's. Anmccaff (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Appears to fail WP:NSONG so I nominated it for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Dunno if the song as a whole isn't notable, but this article looks like an ad. Someone had added [[41]|diff] a category to it, 2013 songs[[42]] which I removed; this appears to refer to songs first published or released in that year, not cover of older (...better..) work. There's another category for 2013 singles[[43]]"; does the same rule apply? Anmccaff (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the singles category is correct. Maybe there's a category for traditional songs that have no traceable year. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I'm surprised this hasn't changed to Coverapedia. This looks like a great way to use Wiki as a free billboard. Anmccaff (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The very tight window allowed by WP:SONGCOVER is supposed to squelch promotional mentions of cover versions. The consensus that established SONGCOVER is not prominent enough; many people just ignore it. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Banshees

1) If a contributor doesn't strictly wp:STICKTOSOURCE, it is wp:OR. 2) Putting a source in the infoxbox is not necessary 3) This user is a blatant clone of Lachlan Foley. Carliertwo (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I withdraw the point 3. However, this didn't improve the article. Carliertwo (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The two of you ought to work together to expand the text rather than acting like it is a zero-sum game. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

5 Seconds of Summer (album)

Can you keep an eye once again. 115.164.209.205 (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

On it. Thanks for your dedication and perseverance, my Malaysian friend. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

NOW 50 deluxe

There's a reason there's a link to the Now 50 Deluxe Edition, leave it as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.32.26 (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see your reason, and there's no source to support the track list. Out it goes. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Leave the deluxe edition track list alone. If you don't trust me then leave it alone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.32.26 (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please be respectful and explain why you decide to revert edits

Binksternet, I take objection to your edit note "Psychedelic Viking Music my ass." It is Wikipedia policy to treat editors with respect, something that you seem to feel like you're above. I posted on Funk Metal's talk page explaining the reasoning for my edits. The least you could do is explain why you performed your reversion like a civil human being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurritoSlayer (talk • contribs)

You might want to scroll up the page to Claypool's instructions where I inform another user that Claypool's meddling in Wikipedia has gotten people blocked. You're treading on thin ice trying to question sources such as the Australian magazine Hot Metal while you yourself are using as a source an audio recording of Claypool. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the controversy so I started doing some research. The question of Primus's musical genre has been hotly debated, and the most common characterization, by far, is that Primus is in its own musical genre. Many publications reference Primus as "funky" or "funk-influenced," but they are rarely characterized as simply "funk metal." I looked to see what sources the Funk Metal page had for including Primus, and each was flimsy. There were only two sources (which you simply re-added without checking) on the Funk Metal page that dealt with Primus: one was a broken AllMusic link, the other was a link to ram.org, the personal site of a computational biologist. I don't question the reliability of Hot Metal, I question using a second-hand version of that article from the personal site of a computational biologist.

As for the audio recording, first, in your own post on your talk page you acknowledge its authenticity. Indeed, it is even hosted on Wikimedia. Second, I did not add a category for "Psychedelic Viking Music." I simply added in the text of the article that Claypool himself considers it to be the thematic style of his band. Isn't an artist's opinion of his own music relevant to the "Musical style and influences" section of his band's page? BurritoSlayer (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

To continue, here's some articles that explain Primus's classification:

• Las Vegas Review Journal: "Genre-straddling"
• AV Club: "alt-rock culture as a funky, experimental antidote to the scourge of slackerdom"
• Daily Freeman: "alternative rock band"
• Times-Standard: "experimental-rock band"
• SoundSpike: "Experimental rock outfit"

There are plenty of other sources that show the same. 20:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

References

If Claypool had said his music was some kind of valid genre, or even a plausible hybrid genre, then it would be interesting to relay this to the readers. But "psychedelic viking" is a joke genre, not supposed to be taken seriously. If we were fleshing out how Claypool is quirky and humorous, then that might fit in the paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Primus's music is so out-there that "Psychedelic Viking Music" could be a plausible characterization of it. Just because it doesn't fit within standard taxonomies of music doesn't mean it's not a valid designation.

You also didn't respond to my other comments on how the Funk Metal article was poorly sourced, and how you did nothing to improve its sourcing while hastily reverting my edits. Do you have any justification for keeping the thin sourcing as is? BurritoSlayer (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy adding sources. There are so many that it overwhelms, which is why I was immediately put off by your removal of "funk metal" from Primus and Primus from funk metal. Such a removal would never be considered by a person who was familiar with the literature.

I don't have anything constructive to say about the plausibility of "psychedelic viking music" as a genre. It's ridiculous; intentionally so. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Chicago 18

Got your message earlier...I only added the production credits and information from my Chicago 18 CD. I didn't think I'd done anything wrong, just only added important info..I apologize if I'd cause any interference... Joshuadejohnson (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I want to tell you that I reacted strongly because of all of the unreferenced production credits that have been added to music articles, the additions made by your Joshuadejohnson account and by IPs such as 108.239.234.87 from Merced and a whole bunch from Raleigh[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] who are interested in the band Chicago and in Christian music by artists such as Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith, just like you are. I figured these IPs were you editing while logged out. That's why I placed a very strong warning on your page.

Regarding the credits you added, you must figure out how to add a reference, even something as simple as <ref>Credits as listed on the CD album booklet, 1994 Geffen catalog number GEFD-12345.</ref> All you need to do is to make sure that someone is able to go verify that the information has been published. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Joshuadejohnson, something that worries me are little edits such as this one where a name (or two) is added to a song credit. Can you tell me how somebody copying down the CD booklet credits would fail to include these names on the first go? If all the credits came straight from the CD booklet then it would be easy to get it right the first time. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Gilbert O'Sullivan

You said that you re-edited my changes on the Gilbert O'Sullivan page. Gilbert is IRISH, not british/english or anything else. Just ask the guy! He was born in Ireland and is IRISH. end of! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auric73 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Andrewbf Again?

Hello again! I suspect the return of Andrewbf - now IP 187.213.37.100, location Mexico. Major changes to house music pages, etc, similar pattern as before.

(Etheldavis (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC))

Yes, it's him. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, Binksternet. I feel kind of sorry for him because, somehow, I think he means well - he just doesn't grasp the importance of reliable sources, consensus, etc, but his continual disruption is very wearing all the same.

(Etheldavis (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC))

Yes, I'm sympathetic as well, but language for him is a barrier to comprehending how much of a fine line it is for this or that genre to be applied to a song, album or artist. Yet he is determined to put his views into the encyclopedia, which is why he was blocked in the first place. Now that he is continually evading a block, he's beyond help. He would have to stop contributing in any form for six months and then try the WP:Standard offer to see how that goes. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Well, we'll probably see him again sometime, but thank you again for acting so promptly - as always.

(Etheldavis (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC))

Millbrae edit-- CAFL guy

Hi Binksternet, I edited the Millbrae page without any reliable sources because the information actually came from prior knowledge and personal experience; I know many people that live in Millbrae and call it that, and I have even seen a short performance by some American kids about it, making a fictional bank called the Bank of Millbrasia, in with the name written in both English and Chinese. So, therefore, I cannot provide any reliable sources. (Sorry to disappoint you, but you'll just have to believe me that a large percentage of Millbrae calls it that.) Thanks!! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAFL guy (talk • contribs) 08:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(not Binksternet, but...) All the information in Wikipedia needs to be spurceable to reliable media (books, magazines, TV news, something).

Separately from that, As a lifelong SF Bay Area resident I don't think I have ever heard it called that. Sure it 's that common in town?...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

George is right. All information on Wikipedia must be previously published in WP:Reliable sources. Even then, a very localized usage might not be appropriate because it gives WP:UNDUE weight to a minor or fringe viewpoint. These rules are strict policy. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Allenroyboy sock

Blocked him. Adding same text as added before. Doug Weller (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes this stuff is dead easy obvious. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Notable band?

Hi again, going through the usual uploads over at Commons and came across |this page. I don't know a lot about popular music, could you take a look? Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the guy was trying to promote his non-notable band. I blanked his user page; we'll see what happens next. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Electronic music

The phonautograph did not use electricity. The phonograph did not (at first) use electricity. The telharmonium did not use electronics. The futurists, while they had knowledge of electric instruments like the telharmonium, had no idea about electronics. Luigi Russolo used acoustic instruments for his performances. The section is titled "origins" because it explores the factors that precede electronic music. Of course, the Denis d'or was a curio, but it is discussed in Electronic musical instrument, and most importantly one small imperfection is not a good reason to revert the entirety of someone's changes.

At first, I was surprised to see that the article was in such an unreadable, uninformative, and unfocused state. Now it makes more sense.

I was originally prepared to bring the article to featured quality, and make it understandable for people who haven't spent their entire lives in the industry like yourself. Unfortunately, I didn't forsee it would involve warring with people who prefer maintaining poor quality over imperfect improvement. So, in all honesty, you can have the article exactly the way you like it. I'm no longer interested. --Teggles (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to repair your interest in the article but I wanted to say you are misrepresenting me. Binksternet (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Remember, the point of Wikipedia is to write quality, cited articles. That takes encouraged editors, and it takes incremental improvement. It's not helpful to revert great efforts for insignificant reasons. Don't be overly protective of a B-quality article. --Teggles (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 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 reviews: Nick-D on the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during 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) 11:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought you should know...

National Report is not a reliable source, to put it mildly. - MrX 02:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Help me out a bit... Where did I advocate using that website? Wherever it was, I plead temporary insanity. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that your comment was made several days ago: talk:Carly Fiorina#Original research regarding jobs at HP. You cited this. - MrX 03:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Heh heh... In hindsight that's a pretty funny article. I guess I was rushed to get my talk page post written, and didn't consider the source very carefully. I bet I would have been more careful if I had been composing article text. Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I might have made the same mistake were it not for the red dot next to the link, courtesy of WOT. - MrX 03:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for that vandalism edit

Sorry for that vandalism edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.252.221.146 (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

From Japanese Spirits, I have only Japanese references for the pointed article. But I wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japanese spirits (talk • contribs) 15:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Business career

I'd appreciate your comments at Talk:Carly Fiorina#Business career - Cwobeel (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible Andrewbf Return?

I could be wrong, but I'm slightly uneasy as IP address 201.102.135.232 has made an uncited change to the house music page which tallies with changes often made by Andrewbf - and the IP location is Mexico. Changes have also been made to other pages. My son reverted the change to the house music page and then alerted me.

(Etheldavis (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC))

Yes, that's Andrewbf, who uses IP addresses from around the city of Querétaro, Querétaro, and the Greater Mexico City metropolis. If the IP is from these places and is genre warring about electropop or house music, you can bet it's Andrewbf.

Per WP:NOSHARE, your son needs to register his own account. A single Wikipedia account cannot be used by multiple persons. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

My son has no Wikipedia account and does not edit using my account. My log-in details are known only to me. His reversion was made with no account. The second reversion was made by me with my account, after my son had alerted me to the situation.

(Etheldavis (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC))

Okay, sorry to have jumped to a wrong conclusion. Tell your son I said hello. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm trying to get my son to become a Wikipedian, and he is interested in the work here, but he's at a difficult age and if I ask him to do something, he tends to do the opposite. Teenagers! Needless to say, I love him dearly! :)

(Etheldavis (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC))

Vandalism?

Hi, I just received a message from you saying that I vandalized the page for Gob's Apt. 13 when I just corrected a misleading bit of misinformation on the page. I even had a source which I put up. I also got a message for "continued vandalism" but I don't understand how any of the edits I've made have been vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.106.205 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You are contributing from Toronto, and you are editing articles related to the band Gob. Less than 100 km from Toronto is Cambridge, Ontario, where there is a person who has been called the 'box office bomb' vandal. This vandal is interested in the band Gob, as well as films that performed poorly. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive892#Box-office bomb guy, block evasion from Cambridge, Ontario, Canada. Your geographical proximity and interest in Gob made me suspicious. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I forgot to sign in to my account when I made those edits. I just want to clear up that I was only trying to fix some misinformation on the Gob pages and edit some of the sentences that I felt weren't structured very well. I am not interested in poor films or anything like that. (User:SickofTalk)

Angel Witch

Really? You're going to try and block me over something that trivial even though I clearly have a source, which is the record's label? Must be your time of the month or something. Sickening how abusive of power mods can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8b83:4860:58d:190c:d4f2:3950 (talk • contribs)

References

Discogs is not reliable because it can be edited by anybody. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources under "Sources to avoid". As far as blocking you goes, quite a lot of genre warring has been coming out of Raleigh, North Carolina, from IP addresses such as yours. You would be in the best position to know whether you have been disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

User sub-pages

Hi Binks – long time, no see. Listen, I have something to ask you. Another editor, IllaZilla, has just nominated my user sub-pages for deletion. You would have seen them before, right? Are they really the sort of things that aren't allowed here, regardless of their purpose? 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I had never seen those pages before today. Looks to me like a blatant violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. I have nominated stuff like this for deletion many times. You can copy the contents to your computer if you want to save the work. But Wikipedia is not here for that purpose. Binksternet (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Heavy metal music

Hi Binksternet, I am not new to Wikipedia, I've been editing since 2006. We have chatted briefly before on some pro sound articles. Of all the articles I have edited, I have never run into an article like Heavy metal music. Yes, I have had heated debates with other editors over what counts as a reliable source and debates over NPOV and due/undue weight issues (Gratuity and Goth subculture are two articles where there was a lot of debate). But in the end, when the dust settled, we worked out a compromise wording, where some of the content I was proposing was included, with substantial modifications requested by the other editors. But with Heavy metal music, there is no compromising and making concessions over wording or choice of references until a consensus is reached. It is just "No edits are permitted." In another article, the discussion on "guitar solos are an important part of heavy metal" would have had another editor supplying references that show that guitar soloing is not used in some metal subgenres. So then we could work out a compromise wording like "Guitar solos were an important part of heavy metal in the 1970s and 1980s, but since that time, some subgenres have placed less emphasis on the guitar solo or omitted it entirely."OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 01:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The "no edits are permitted" attitude is from just one person. I foresee that this one person will not be able to prevent expansion to the article if several other editors agree on what the expansion should be. I am considering composing a paragraph about guitar solos and inserting it. If you think my work is worthy, then tweak it as necessary and help us keep it in the article. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I really like your idea of proposing a paragraph, and based on my reading of the sources and the fact that other elements (e.g., the power chord) are given their own section, such a paragraph would be warranted. However, given the climate in the article, I fear that an entire paragraph will not be supported, and it may have charges of WP:SYN, undue weight and NPOV leveled against it. I think an incremental approach–the proposal of a single sentence–might have a better chance of getting consensus support. Then once this sentence is safely included (e.g., "The guitar solo has an important role in heavy metal."), then additional proposals can be made to add details to this sentence (e.g., guitar solos commonly use significant virtuosity, the guitar solo has less emphasis in some subgenres or is omitted entirely). Just some ideas. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 13:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not considering a proposal, I'm considering an edit to the article. A proposal under the conditions we have on the talk page will become an endless pit of debate and blockade. Action is needed.

I take your composition advice to heart. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Political persecution?

Hi Binksternet, I am not new also to Wikipedia and have helped as I can. I am not a "professional" Wikipedia Editor nor have any interest in being one but, as shown in several sources which you know about, [54],[55],[56],[57] and others, Wikipedia has become so bureaucratic and practically ruled by a cabal of "professional" Editors who have a markedly liberal political viewpoint on most issues (this is all sourced before, not my viewpoint) it stands as an interesting point that you, a very experienced Editor with, what I presume, is an avowed interest in helping Wikipedia, have had several encounters with this me on the Planned Parenthood Talk Page. I am not sockpuppeting since I have never registered a username before (I will gladly pay 100 BTC to anybody that con prove otherwise) and do not use proxies nor any other masking form of posting here. I would like to point out here, for others to possible chime in and see, that you have been "following" me throughout my edits here on Wikipedia, like a police officer or a paladin of justice of some sort. You went to my edits to the Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation but couldn't find anything to challenge there and then moved on onto the Humberto Fontova's Talk Page, an article which according to your User page history you have never even edited in your career. Please let's include an unrelated Editor into this if you believe I am "trolling" and not contributing. In all honesty I am just trying to add a bit to improve dialogue here and you go ahead, using your long history as en Editor, and brazenly delete my Talk Page comments where other editors cannot see it. Why don't you do that on the highly monitored Planned Parenthood Talk Page? Why didn't you warn of blocking several editors who have broken these "rules" you amply talk about there? I didn't see you offering to block editor JBL when he graciously posted to me in said Talk Page "Go fuck yourself", or did you?

Please, if you wish to respond, don't ignore my questions and do properly answer all of them. I have noticed you have a pattern of obviating hard to answer questions.

PS. Please do take note of the vast amount of criticism and just complaints you have had in your User Page and you have promptly deleted. I understand it's within your right, but it goes to show that you seem to have a history as a controversial Editor. Hope you don't delete this too. 186.120.130.16 (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

On my talk page I keep honest criticism and delete trolling.

I saw your behavior was disruptive at Talk:Planned Parenthood, so I followed your edits to see if I could mitigate the disruption. No apology for that.

If you have a problem with an editor take your concerns to WP:ANI rather than posting them on an article's talk page. See WP:TPG for more advice, though you've been pointed there before today. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation. Never been there. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Care to mention that it was you who "directed" me there" If you fail to disclose that it makes me seem as having had issues with other Editors. You have also failed to disclose why have you deleted the stern warnings received on your User page for your past behaviour, since they were neither "criticism" nor "trolling". Interesting to not that your comment when deleting those is just "Got it" or similar variations. Also play pray tell how did you "follow my edits"? What was the process? What is akin to stalking? No accusations are being done here, I am just genuinely curious to see how you came upon those edits. Also, you fail to address my past questions, most of them, even when I particularly asked of you to answer them. Any chance of me getting some reprise here? Thanks for your time. 186.120.130.16 (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not direct you to the article Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation, nor did I direct you to edit any other article. I can't even figure out who did direct you to edit that article. It looks like you are making it up.

What I do with my user talk page is none of your business.

Wiki software allows anyone to check out the past history of all articles, talk pages, user pages etc. Every edit of a registered account is listed unless it's been hidden or deleted by administrators. I am not going to help you figure out how to do this as I don't think you will be less disruptive with more information. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems you did not ready my comment so let me rephrase it: you have spouted thinly-veiled vitriol at me due to me opening up the large amount of criticism you have received in this very same User page that you have deleted. You are free to do so, right? But then you post here that I have been directed to WP:TPG already but failed to mention it was you. This is suspicious that you fail to disclose it. 186.120.130.16 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so it's WP:TPG and not Mission Impossible. Fine.

Nothing you say here will make my talk page deletions be any of your business. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that you've filled in the four spaces above which you had reserved for links. The Front Page magazine link is totally unreliable. The Wikipedia List of Cabals is humor. I do not agree that "liberals have taken over Wikipedia", in any form, nor do I intend to debate the matter with you. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting you were wrong. I sincerely mean it since I have read all the past criticisms that have been posted here and I understand that this is as far as you would go. No offense intended. I also presume WP:TIAC is also humor, right? 186.120.130.16 (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

So it is ok for you to post 6 times today on my User page but when I post on your User page you delete it? I have never been insulting nor anything of the likes but it does seem youo like to keep your User page clean of anything that might reflect poorly on you. 186.120.130.16 (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

For the last time, my own talk page is none of your business. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry Binksternet but these comments are neither vandalism nor edit warring. This is all regarding the 6 different posts, warnings and threats of ban including, you posted on my own User page in less than 3 hours. I have read WP:UP and since I am not insulting, vandalizing not anything similar, do not see how you can ban me from your User page WP:NOBAN. I will leave you alone when you leave me alone too. You have accused me and warned me several times just today. There is obviously WP:HOUND on your part when you seek out my contributions on articles you have never even conceived of going to and, even though I have not violated any WP guidelines there, you blanket-delete them while calling me a troll. You obviously have a bone to pick here and I do not understand why. 186.120.130.16 (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Inna discography

Hi!

I see that you nominated the article 'Inna discography' for deletion. Well, it contains much information about her chart peaks and certifications throughout her seven years of career. You're right about some dubious links, but do not delete the article immediately(!!!!!!); let me know what poblems you found on Inna's discography page, so I can fix it for you!! I can explain you the things you discussed in "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inna discography": "LatINNA" is not the title of one of her albums: It is just the former name of her now-renamed full-length record INNA (The title was simply renamed from LatINNA to INNA). There is no album by her named "The Romantic Collection", it's just an unofficially collection of her tracks that premiered on an illegal website. And finally, the "Summer Days EP" was supposed to be released, but never was. Thus, most of the track released from it were included on Inna's actual album INNA. Have any questions?- Then simply ask me!

Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages at Shirik's talk page.
Message added 19:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)