User talk:Binksternet


Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

Archives

Editing trouble

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

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

Greenwood

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

KB edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shane McRae edits

Hello I saw you reversed my edits on the Wikipedia pages for Shane McRae and Bad Teacher crediting him for a minor role in the unrated version of the film. I assume this is because he’s not credited on IMDB so I didn’t provide a source, but I actually looked at his page again and saw this photo still of him from the film from the scene in the unrated version of the film. Is this enough source to add the film to his page and the credits section of the Bad Teacher page? 2600:6C47:BCF0:9440:1B7:1B7F:B1C6:C415 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published facts. If the fact hasn't been published, it is not for Wikipedia. We are not here to figure out all the missed stuff and make sure it gets in. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've Got To Hide Your Love Away

I've undone your removal of the Beach Boys' cover from the "cover versions" section as they did do a cover of this song, on a top 10 charting album, and there are citations provided which confirm this. There was no good reason to remove this info. 2603:8000:AC00:4300:99C2:F5DB:AC50:72B9 (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SONGCOVER is the good reason. The cover version doesn't get a boost from being on a Top 10 album; it has to be judged on its own merit. At the bare minimum, the cover version should be described as extraordinary by the media. Any charting cover version is certainly included. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if we were talking about a less notable group, but it seems to me that the fact that specifically The Beach Boys - being the most successful American band (of the decade and possibly of all time) and specifically in 1965 at the peak of their popularity and much-ballyhooed rivalry with The Beatles - recorded and released a cover of a Beatles song on an album that went to #6 in the US and #3 in the UK is noteworthy enough to warrant a sentence's mention on the song's page. It feels like a glaring enough omission NOT to include it that while reading this page I went "oh wow why isn't that here? I'll be a diligent Wikipedia user and add it." But since that's not enough for you (and apparently you're the ultimate arbiter here?) it was also released as a single in Japan in 1966 [1] and here are two reviews which mention it as a standout track on the album [2] [3] and HERE are two Beatles(not Beach Boys)-centric websites which mention it outside of the context of the album [4] [5]. Can that be it please? 2603:8000:BDF0:B930:14DA:9FFB:7925:E78D (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pretend to be the arbiter but I am quite active on Wikipedia, so my viewpoint gets more visibility.

The thing about the prominence of the Beach Boys is that, if their version of the song "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" wasn't mentioned by the media, then it was judged less important by the media. We would be giving it undue weight if we list it. The fact that the song was released as a single isn't good enough for WP:SONGCOVER. The single must have charted somewhere to be important. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their version of the song was mentioned by the media, in the examples I provided as well as others. Even if it is "less important" than the original song (an impossible metric for any cover of a Beatles song to top), that doesn't mean it doesn't merit a mention in the article. Nowhere in the song cover guidelines does it say that a cover version must have charted as a single to be considered noteworthy. I'll quote your response to the user above: "Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published facts." It is a published fact that The Beach Boys, an extremely notable band, released a cover version of this song, which was also released as a single and has been discussed, as I've now provided multiple links attesting to. Per the songcover guidelines, a cover should EITHER be "discussed by a reliable source, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right. Merely appearing in an album track listing, a discography, etc. is not sufficient" OR meet the requirements for a standalone page. I'm not trying to create a standalone page for this or act like it deserves one. But I am providing much more evidence than the examples listed in the guidelines as insufficient ("an album track listing or discography"). This satisfies the first of the two criteria listed, which in and of itself is sufficient to merit its inclusion in the article. It would not be giving it "undue weight" but an entirely appropriate mention. In fact, I can go to many, many other musician's pages and find dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of less notable cover songs than this one being included, without issue. Since it bothers you so much and you've decided it's your prerogative, why haven't you gone and cleaned house on every other music page? You are pretending to be the arbiter here - the fact that you do this a lot doesn't mean that you're not doing it. You are being willfully obtuse and overly proscriptive in your own personal interpretation of these guidelines - to what end I can't imagine, unless it's to satisfy some personal bias. A cursory Google search of your username shows that you have quite a reputation as something of a Wikipedia bully, who uses the pretense of neutrality to inject your own personal bias into articles - and looking deeper into your edit history confirms this to be true. Given that, it's clear that there's no way I'm going to get you to do a 180 and admit that you're wrong here, and you'll just keep removing valid edits until people get fed up and leave - so that's what I'm doing, congratulations you win again. But I'll leave you with this: I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you didn't actually set out to codify your personal biases and beliefs in a space that's supposed to be a public resource of neutral information, and that you do in fact believe that you're acting in good faith in defense of said neutrality. Based on your edit history and your rightly-earned reputation, I would suggest that you might consider that you've lost sight of your (correct and ultimately noble) goal and have let your personal biases get in the way of doing what you clearly see as your job - to the detriment of Wikipedia and its reputation as a source of information. Nobody in the world is perfect, but you seem to have an entirely inflated and unhealthy sense of your own infallibility, which doesn't serve you (or anyone else) well. Just food for thought. 2603:8000:BDF0:B930:BAB7:4F59:D434:549 (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking to what you did, your second edit which included two references was still a violation of WP:SONGCOVER. The Slowinski credit in the AV media citation doesn't refer to any prose analysis by Slowinski saying that this cover version was extraordinary in some manner. Instead, Slowinski and Boyd are credited as the researchers who figured out which song contained which musicians from which recording sessions. The songs are not praised or panned in a critical review, just listed in order as part of the album. That's not enough to get through the SONGCOVER requirement. Your second citation is an example of the song being performed live in concert, which again is not enough to increase its importance for Wikipedia to notice. Three things can convey importance: chart success, a major award nomination, or critical commentary in books, newspapers, magazines, etc.

Now about my actions: Wikipedia's original intent was to summarize a topic's most important points for the reader. It was never meant as a full and complete collection of every fact about a topic. Wikipedia's current policy continues with this idea: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says that the online encyclopedia "does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject." There are other websites trying to fill that gap, for instance secondhandsongs is attempting to list every song cover no matter how obscure. Wikipedia's refusal to include every fact is the spirit which drives my removal of the lesser known song covers from song articles. Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Smith

You're calling me out on “awful sourcing” and restored a version that uses a damn YouTube video as a source. Is this a joke? ThisIs00k (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got that one backwards. Sorry. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another User:MariaJaydHicky sock?

Hi there Binksternet, I came across some edits from the above User:ThisIs00k today and noticed that it felt very familiar to this LTA: WP:LTA/MJH. A bit of genre warring / changes going on, and a heavy focus on R&B music articles. I have already published an SPI report over here, but anyways would you agree with my findings that this is another likely sock of MariaJaydHicky? — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, someone's sock. It's also too close to the existing username User:This0k and should be blocked as a spoof. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not me. This0k (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful edit summaries

I don't think "Nope nope nope" and "Rv image vandalis," are helpful edit summaries when reverting good faith edits, which is what these appear to be. Is there something I'm missing here? — Qwerfjkl talk 18:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loosen up. Those edit summaries were meant to alert longstanding editors that consensus was being violated. I'm not going to change my style for the few times I choose to sound the alarm. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And why would longstanding editors need to be alerted? I'm just saying, a less bitey approach might have been better. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military history newcomer of the year and military historian of the year

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about an author and his book

Hey. It's been a minute. I was pressed about this author by the name of Ian Hall and his books on One-Hit Wonders of the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s and whether or not he could be used as a source for the List of One-Hit Wonders in the United States wiki page. He is from Scotland and now lives with his wife in Topeka, Kansas. His book includes chart data from different countries, primarily building off of the Billboard Hot 100 in the states. Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with his books is that they are self-published through CreateSpace. That means WP:USERG is the applicable guideline. The books are not considered a reliable source unless Ian Hall can be argued as a notable expert on music topics. Is he famous for music analysis or criticism? Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say he's famous from the looks of it. Even if he knows his stuff really well. I could be inaccurate on that though. Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]