User talk:Binksternet/Archive57

702 "Gotta Leave" page

• How is it vandalizing if I am fixing the page from an error? I put February 2000 as it was from the MTV article used as it's source.Meddymarl (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess you are talking about this change of mine which restored the correct date of an article by MTV. The article appeared in December 1999.

I was reverting an IP editor, which I now assume was you editing logged out. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User disrupting Justin Timberlake-related articles

Just to let you know that I have reverted several edits from User:Wikismart2468 regarding Justin Timberlake singles from his Justified album. The user's edits stem from adding unsourced and inaccurate recording and release dates for each single, as well as rearranging the Justified release order to their liking. I have already warned the user twice on their talk page, but I am not active enough on each article to continuously revert their edits since I am currently only keeping "Like I Love You" on my watchlist, and would not like to violate WP:3RR as a result. Would you kindly be able to revert the user on any of those articles if they attempt to re-insert any unsourced or invalidated information. Thank you. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Angryjoe1111, I will keep that album on my watchlist. The new user might be done with disruption, moving on after getting no traction here. But if he starts up again, we can report him. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

AIV

Since various single IPs in that /64 range were already blocked, I've blocked the whole range for a month. As regards the 174.215.x.x IPs, there is collateral in blocking the whole /20, so I've partially blocked it from List of West Coast hip hop artists for 6 months as a starting point. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I was just looking at that solution, and silently applauding. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Help!

Why can't the same format used in "Please Please Me", "With The Beatles", "A Hard Day's Night", "Beatles For Sale", "Revolver", "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", "Magical Mystery Tour", "Yellow Submarine", "The Beatles" and "Abbey Road" be used too in "Help!" If it is the same? If all their albums have same format why can't this be if it is the saaame? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.6.215.135 (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

MOS:STYLEVAR says don't go around changing code styles. That's why. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I read that already and there is not a reason to unvalidate my change on it, i have given a substantial reason for it, the rest of the studio albums have the same style, i am just adding the same style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.6.215.135 (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If you don't see by now why it's a bad idea, then I'm done explaining. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I hope that these sources are better for the topic.

Henry F. Gerecke was the Pastor/Chaplain for the Nazi war criminals at Nuremeberg. He communed of those executed: Joachim Von Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Keitel, Fritz Sauckel, and Wilhelm Frick. Of those not executed, he communed Baldur Von Schirach, Baron Von Neurth, Hans Fritzsche, Erich Raeder, and Albert Speer.

Frick, Keitel, Ribbentrop and Sauckel were communed but Gerecke did not commune Goering and Rosenberg. Really Rosenberg was atheist but Goering said "Jesus was just another smart Jew and I will take my chances." He even said "‘I’ll take the Supper just in case there is anything to this business of yours.’ but was refused however..Then he committed suicide.

The blog article was directly pulled from The Saturday Evening Post, September 1, 1951 and even says that it is unmodified. Fenetrejones (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The blog the second time was a accidental paste, my bad on that one.Fenetrejones (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

And according to the Washington Examiner, Fritzsche and Von Shirach were some of the more eager ones to convert.Fenetrejones (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

References

My basic problem with the material that you keep re-inserting is that it fails WP:WEIGHT. How often is the final chaplain and conversion mentioned in sources? Hardly at all. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, and should not be used to define a topic. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.) I can't see how such a minor incident should be mentioned as if it were important. And how can this very minor material be the foundation of a category about the person? Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The chaplain did say that he converted them.Fenetrejones (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It evens says on the Henry F. Gerecke article that he communed Shirach among others.Fenetrejones (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

But nobody in the media considers this to be defining. They don't believe the conversion was real or important. Certainly it was unimportant in the larger scheme of the man's life, since there was a huge amount of evil-doing and irreligious activity, and a microscopic period of contrition at the end. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It is about the end of a person's life. For example, Jeffrey Dahmer was not religious but in prison he got baptized. It doesn't nullify his action, but it was still a piece of his biography. Here is more with Gerecke on the Nuremeber defendants,. The media never said they don't consider it genuine for some of these men, it is just not what is typically focused on.Fenetrejones (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC) And maybe it is not what they were known for, but it was notable in their later years in life.Fenetrejones (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

References

That's where you and I are clashing. I think it makes no difference, that it is a worthless piece of religious theater – a desperate ploy by a desperate man in the face of certain death. And the media typically ignores these sorts of last-minute conversions, determining that they are not important to the man's life story. It would be drastically different if the person converted to a new faith and then achieved significant good works, partially undoing their former evils.

I will continually challenge your additions per WP:WEIGHT. If authors don't discuss the issue in the mainstream literature, then I don't think we should redefine the topic because of a death row conversion. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair point, but Huffington Post confirmed it happened.. While Youtube should usually be avoided this was from a newsreel in 1951 and is from a justice news source that does not have a history of lacking credibility, and the robert h jackson center (the channel for the video) confirms it on their site. The Christian Science Monitor talks about the subjectFenetrejones (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

References

All of this is good material for the Henry F. Gerecke biography but not the condemned prisoners he ministered. By the way, the Gerecke biography should have an image of him at top. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I do agree, however, I do not know how to upload images that are not original work, but you are right.Fenetrejones (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Also wouldn't the condemned men that did partake in communion count as converts? Because by definition they are.Fenetrejones (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

References

I don't care to argue whether they are converts in the eyes of some religion. I only care about the WP:WEIGHT of how the men are depicted in mainstream literature. Binksternet (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't not confirm how genuine they were or not, but if mainstream sources and Henry F. Gerecke said himself that he communed them then they do count by defintion.Fenetrejones (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Do the mainstream sources describe them as converted men? For instance, do the sources say "Converted Christian Baldur Benedikt von Schirach"? No, they don't. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

For example, they do say Greceke communed Fritz Sauckel for example, so in those cases, yes.Fenetrejones (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

And the book, Mission at Nuremberg: An American Army Chaplain and the Trial of the Nazis, goes in much more depth about the story. This is the source that sources like Washington Post looked for to make the article. Tim Townsend is the author by the way.

There is an entire 26 page document that analyses the whole thing. Right Here:Fenetrejones (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

References

The-Dream

I’m confused as to why you keep deleting associated acts The-Dream has recognition with and won accolades with such as Grammys and RIAA Diamond, platinum and gold certifications. Rihanna Justin Bieber Jay-Z Beyoncé Kanye West

What is the disagreement to fact? WikiMusicx (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't deny the collabs. The problem is that listing associated acts takes more than one or two songs together. The instructions are at Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts where it says a listing requires multiple collabs. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

For associated acts more homework should be done for whoever edits it. The-Dream works with these artists consistently and has more than 5 prominent records with each of these acts (Jay-Z, Beyoncé, Rihanna, Kanye West, Usher) WikiMusicx (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Kevin McCreary, Alex Kendrick, Flywheel

In the Wikipedia article for Flywheel (film) the Reception section says "This section needs expansion ..." In response I provided links to Kevin McCreary's critical review and Alex Kendrick's somewhat sympathetic response.

Very soon after, you removed the links, providing the reason "removing paragraph based entirely on primary sources. Wikipedia should be built from WP:SECONDARY sources". I am confused. I thought that primary sources are preferable to secondary sources. Please explain further.98.149.97.245 (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I supplied a link to WP:SECONDARY which explains it all. Binksternet (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I wrote the above response after reading WP:SECONDARY. Also the source Say Goodnight Kevin, the same source that I am citing, appears in reference 42 in the Wikipedia article on VeggieTales. So I remain confused. Please explain further.98.149.97.245 (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

In VeggieTales, the information is coming from the originator of VeggieTales who is talking to Kevin McCreary. The link you brought to Flywheel was Kevin by himself on his own YouTube podcast, giving his opinion about the film, which fails WP:SELFPUB. Someone's self-published stuff can be used as a reference if they are a widely acknowledged expert on the topic, for instance Roger Ebert's own website was considered a reliable source for film reviews because of his reputation already established in newspapers and TV. Binksternet (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

In the second link that I provided, Alex Kendrick is talking to Kevin McCreary. Following your logic, that link should be permitted.98.149.97.245 (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Right, but are WP:SECONDARY sources talking about the issue? Not that I've seen. WP:WEIGHT talks about how lesser or minor facts are not so important that they should be included. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

AMENDED. In the second link that I provided, the information is coming from Alex Kendrick, the originator of Flywheel, who is talking to Kevin McCreary. Following your logic, that link should be permitted.98.149.97.245 (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, the sentence "Flywheel won awards at the 2004 WYSIWYG Film Festival, 2004 ICVM Crown Awards and 2004 Sabaoth International Film Festival." has no active link, nor any other support, yet it remains. But when I supply two links, both are removed. Seems more than an inconsistent standard has been applied.98.149.97.245 (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Meng (talk • contribs) 22:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Revenge edits

I notice that when some editors behave badly, friends of theirs seem to attack the attacked, going to pages they might have edited and essentially revenge-editing. Should this be encouraged? Brunswicknic (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

After seeing disruptive behavior I frequently go to a person's edit history to discover whether there is more of it. I call it improving the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

My recent edits

Hey, it's me again, I've made a lot edits recently, so I was wondering if maybe you could look over them and make sure that I didn't add any poorly sourced content, because I'm still having trouble with things like that. Category adder :D (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Anything specific? It's a lot of research, figuring out someone's every edit. Binksternet (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say mainly my genre edits and my edits to the list of glam metal bands and artists, sorry, I know it's a big request Category adder :D (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you know who "Matt" is beyond the mononym?[1] If we don't know the author, the source is much less reliable. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No I just looked for a last name, but it just says "Matt". Category adder :D (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, so we don't know how much of an expert he is.

Genres in the infobox are supposed to be a summary of the literature. If only one source says a particular genre, then maybe it's an outlier, and if so, the music should not be classified that way at the top of the article. It's still possible for us to tell the reader about the source, using a prose description in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

So do you think that I should move the source to the body of the article due to its semi-questionable nature?Category adder :D (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

If it's just "Matt" the music critic then I'm afraid it is not useful here. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh so I should revert my edit completely? Category adder :D (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would remove any sources that have just a first name or a pseudonym for the author, with no record of being considered an expert music critic. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, is there any cases where sources without a full name are reliable? Category adder :D (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

If lots of other sources cite the person then they are considered an expert, no matter what their name is. Per WP:ALBUMAVOID, if a music critic is listed as Staff or Emeritus on Sputnikmusic, they are acceptable for Wikipedia, even if they go by a pseudonym. An example of that is JohnnyoftheWell, who is a Staff reviewer. If the person has worked as a music critic for big name periodicals, that lends big cred. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, so if a person going by any nickname or their real name is numerously cited as being reliable then it's kind of like majority rules on the reliability of the person? Category adder :D (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I would not call it "majority rules". The things that make a music critic reliable are: others cite them, or they worked for a big name published source, or they are famous on their own. We can cite a source with a relatively unknown music critic if the source has an editorial board with a reputation for accuracy. In the latter case, it doesn't matter so much who wrote the review. We can just be satisfied that Rolling Stone or Spin or NME published the review. In the throwbacks.com example with "Matt", I am not getting a solid feeling from the website; I don't trust them to have a strong editorial board. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandal at Nova Twins

Thanks for your your recent reversions of a vandal at Nova Twins. That person has used several different IP addresses plus an old screen name that was blocked. I have been reverting the edits about "arrested for indecent exposure" for at least a month. Under multiple identities the person keeps adding the same block of text, and they will probably keep screwing around. At any rate, I can find no reliable evidence that such an incident ever happened. I've been unable to do much Wikipedia work for the past couple of weeks, so thanks for stepping in. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. I asked for article protection;[2] let's see what happens with that. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Radhesh Aria draft

There's activity concerning Draft:Radhesh Aria where IPs are inserting starring credits for Mulan (2020 film) and Dangerous Lies (2020 film) into the article. I have checked over both of these films' credits and his name is nowhere to be seen. Aria was perhaps an uncredited extra. However, some of Aria's credits have affected other websites. I noticed you reverted the IP before for "Fiji vandal" HERE so was wondering if this is more of the same and if so what to do about it? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I started an SPI for the accounts as well Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Radheshariaofficial AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Good work. In the Dangerous Lies article, the vandal used the Fiji IP Special:Contributions/27.123.140.11. The /21 range Special:Contributions/27.123.140.0/21 has a lot of this guy. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Brief Newtonian diversion

A Jewish guy walks into his synagogue on Yom Kippur with his dog. The rabbi stops him at the door and says :"Albert, what's the matter with you? You can't bring a dog in here."

"Don't worry, Rabbi," replies Albert, Isaac here is just as orthodox as I am, and he's come to pray." And as soon as he says that, the dog stands up on his hind legs, pulls a yarmulke out of Albert's pocket, grabs a prayer book and starts praying in perfect Hebrew.

The Rabbi is amazed. "Oh my god," he says, "this is incredible, Albert. You should make this dog become a rabbi!"

"You try telling him that, Rabbi," replies Albert. "He wants to be a physicist."

Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Oy! Thanks for the smile. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You're tired, you say??

A Frenchman, a German and a Jew walk into a bar.

"I'm tired and thirsty," says the Frenchman. "I must have wine."

"I'm tired and thirsty," says the German. "I must have beer."

"I'm tired and thirsty," says the Jew. "I must have diabetes."

Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I won't add wrong stuff anymore

I really don't want to be rangeblocked again, so I won't add wrong stuff anymore and will only make good faith edits from now on. In the I Hear a Symphony article, it Belford Hendricks, but there was know source, so I edited that accordingly, quoting your reversion edit summary in the I Hear a Symphony (The Supremes album) article. I don't want to be rangeblocked again, so hopefully my edit was good.2601:153:881:3D60:21C4:1E49:146E:BDAD (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Ian Nicholas

Hi Binksternet - I have a question about your recent edit on Thomas Ian Nicholas - I appreciated the removal of the blogspot ref. I did see a warning about blogs but it was from an interview with the actor, but now I know not to use blogs. I thought the shorter bit about the Cubs section was a good edit too. I mean who wants to read about twitter on wiki. I was mainly curious about your edit of the minor names and why you chose to do that? The minor names are listed in the articles I found on People magazine. And I was watching the super bowl recently and Thomas Nicholas' son Nolan River is in that new M Night movie Old. So I think he might be getting his own wiki page before too long... Although I have no idea how to start something like that. I can't even seem to handle minor edits... thanks in advance for your time. Mona1975 (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

People magazine is free to publish names of minor children, but Wikipedia usually chooses to protect non-notable minor children from the spotlight. The policy page WP:BLPNAME goes into how we give more privacy to family members of famous people. Binksternet (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Binksternet: are you an admin? Maybe you can take care of this. Mona1975's first edit, over a decade ago, carried an edit summary saying she was Thomas Ian Nicholas's mother. Possibly (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, no.

I can see that you gave the article a big ugly COI tag, and Mona has been warned about COI, and is being discussed at WP:COIN. I think it will be fairly easy to determine whether her familial bias has had a negative effect on the biography. I will go through the edit history and see what changes have been made. A conflict of interest does not automatically make an editor unsuitable for the job; some are sufficiently objective to write both the bad and the good. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet - Thank you for that info. I had no idea, since the names of the minors had been listed on this wiki page for years. So thank you for adjusting that. so is the same true for wiki pages? meaning that a minor or child of a famous person can't have their own wiki page?

In regard to the COI, I tried to state my case to Probably and Malcous as you can read on Malcous page. I had a typo in my post in 2007 and I was unaware because no one ever called me a COI at that point. Currently I am being scrutinized by both users.

In any case, It would be great if you went through the bio. I've done my very best to be factual and cite references. In the couple days I've been able to cite some more reliable sources for some of the issues on the page. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona1975 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The length of time that the minor names were visible is not going to help return them to the article. Policy violations should be removed no matter how long they have been present.

Yes, I will comb through the things you have edited and see whether you have worked in harmony with the policy WP:Neutral point of view, which is the main issue here – the basis for every concern about conflict of interest. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's something I found:

• This edit is non-neutral because Nicholas was not billed as a star actor in the film Please Give. It's true that the award is given to the entire "ensemble cast", but the media have not been listing non-star actors when they report on the award. So emphasizing Nicholas is promotional, WP:UNDUE.

Otherwise, the edits are neutral enough, providing roles and reviews. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

regarding TIN and his award...

I just wanted to clarify that I was going off of this photo that shows he was actually at the event and received and award. But I still do agree with you that I gave him a bias placement... Just wanted to clarify that I where I was coming from.

Hi Binksternet - Thank you so much for taking the time to look over the bio of Thomas Nicholas' page. It looks so clean now. And yes you are probably right. My fan girl nature got the best of me in regard to Please Give. So you have cleaned that up nicely. Though I do think the award went to the director too but in any case you made it way more neutral. I learned a lot from seeing how you edited the page.

I have a small favor to ask. The user Malcous who was scrutinizing me yesterday has a (as you called it) "a big ugly COI tag" at the top of Brian Metcalf's page. I really loved seeing the new film Adverse that they did in a theater recently. I tried to do some edits over there. I thought the bio looked good to me and I tried to remove his tag... but he put it back and that's when our "conversation" began.

Is there any chance of you looking at Brian Metcalf's page and cleaning it up?

The film just got this review in Variety

I wanted to add it to the page but I'm scared of upsetting Malcous at this point. I was feeling pretty attacked yesterday. But your tone has made me feel much better.

Thank you so very very much.

Mona1975 (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi Binksternet,

First of all, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to fix up Brian Metcalf page. I'm going though your edits and in an effort to learn true wiki neutrality - I wanted to ask you about your decision to include that the film Living Among Us was panned by critics with a 14% rating but not also include that it has a 73% audience rating? Or possible include the Variety or Rotten tomatoes review for Adverse that was positive to show a low note and high note. Otherwise, it reads to me as bias toward the negative. Please let me know what you think as I'm trying to wrap my head around edits in the correct way before I try again.

Thank you kindly.

Mona1975 (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References

We can certainly put something positive in there about Adverse, from a film critic. Regarding Rotten Tomatoes, the critical rating of a film is much more important to report than the audience rating. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I'll take a stab at it. Thank you. I will just pull wording from the artices that are being cited as autonomously as possible.

Mona1975 (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

And here we go again. I spoke to you about the edits I was making and within 5 hours Malcous is there to undo what I've done. He also edited the lead line which was something that you thought was suitable.

You wrote that Brian created and funded the project. But the article referenced says that he wrote, directed and was a producer with Thomas Nicholas.

I think that panned is a very biased word. For instance that would be like me writing that a critic "praised" the film... which by the way... you told me to put the positive review of Adverse and Malcous promptly removed it.

Please help.

While Malcous keep claiming that I am some sort of COI. It seems like he has some sort of vendetta toward Brian Metcalf. Just look at his edit history.

Mona1975 (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I also just looked at the Thomas Nicholas page and he undid a bunch of you edits. I haven't even been over there to do any more edits. I even clicked the talk link at the top of the page and in 2012 someone called the page on Thomas Nicholas a stub. How is it that this Malcous character can truncate a wiki page for an actor that has been in the business for 34 years in to a longline...

Mona1975 (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Back to basics. Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published information. It is not supposed to be all the things that are true but unpublished. So if Malcous is challenging stuff like "Take Me Out to the Ballgame", then find a published source mentioning the fact, and restore it. Malcous removed some other famous actors' names, which isn't wrong, since Nicholas does not inherit their fame. I would point out that the myspace self-published album is also too much for the biography, but Malcous allowed it to stay. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

How is it a "myspace" self published album it it's available on all digital platforms and the title track is associated with Navy Entertainment based upon a tour that his band did for the troops? Not to mention that this section doesn't even mentioned all 6 albums that he has released. And considering that his wikipedia page is linked to the bottom of his Spotify where he has all these albums streaming with well over 500K plays... I don't think that qualifies as a myspace album...

He removed his job titles of musician, director and writer even though he holds these credits...

He removed a personal quote citing it as unnecessary. So how does one decide what is necessary?

Mona1975 (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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

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

Bavio the Benighted (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Your kitten

Elizium23 (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Detroit 2

Can you upload the album cover for Detroit 2, there's already an uploaded one in the article but it's a GIF image. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like fan art. I'll figure something out. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it was Tidal's version; I have no idea where they got it. That version was 12 megabytes which is ridiculously large for non-free Wikipedia images. I uploaded a new gif that doesn't have animation. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Blatant POV Pushing

Hi, I take serious issue with a comment you left on some edits I made where I referred to Nicolás Maduro Moros as, "an embattled dictator" you removed my edits (I could give a shit your justification, the removal of the edits is not particularly at issue). You left the comment, " Lets cut the 'embattled dictator' crap." The long list of crimes against humanity committed by the unlawful Maduro regime against the Venezuelan people are long, and overwhelmingly documented by numerous Governments, NGO's and private citizens. The wellspring of mendacity, baseness, and petty cruelty, present in such a comment can only indicate that you are in flagrant violation of wikipedias policy regarding (WP:PUSH) and are editing with blatant hard left bias. AbdulShariYahar (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

How Did I Find Myself Here?

Hey Binksternet, I can use some help here, and I know you know what to do. Can you provide some info on sales numbers, releases, charts (haha, right), that sort of thing? Every single K-pop single has an article with a boatload of data, so this album could have some too! I'm trying to get this on the front page, for DYK, so my clock is ticking. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I Give Up

You know, it appears you are just going to dog me whatever I do. I can no longer handle it. Having missed 410 days of work the last 4 years, wikipedia composing, adding genuinely useful info while making clearly repetitive or inconcsie text out, was one of my few sources of happiness and using my brain. But, if you read my statements in the "review" of me, you would have seen how people told me to do X and then I did it, and then they or someone else says that is wrong. I re-did the Gregory Peck article 2 years ago to have two levels of footnotes so that people could just put their cursor over the letter note to read more detailed comment of each "famous reviewer" - they didn't have to if they didn't want to. I re-did the entire Number One Tennis Male Tennis Players in the world based on the agreement of two editors 2 to 3 years ago, and now some new persion justg comes in and deletes huge amounts of it and people who agreed with me 2 years ago, change their opinion. I gave up for 5 days until a couple days ago, and now I give up again. Good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed analysis (talk • contribs)

You came here; I'm not dogging you. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned that 207.107.126.137 (talk · contribs) is a sock of Informed analysis. I can't remember how to file SPIs, can you deal (assuming you agree)? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

And I'm concerned that 207.107.126.137 (talk · contribs) is so keen to talk about dogging. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly Informed analysis editing logged out, same as with Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64. But I think we need to keep treating each edit as its own event, throwing out the bad and accepting the good, without trying to get a block. I don't see in the rules where it's forbidden to abandon your username and switch to editing as an IP. But keep an eye out for violations of WP:Multiple since Informed analysis has done this repeatedly in the past. Like if Informed analysis jumps in to continue the edit warring of the IP at Genesis (band). Or if two different IPs from Ontario are edit warring on the same things in the same style. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It's okay to edit logged out, I've done it in the past when at a public-facing terminal before two factor authentication was introduced. However, what's not okay is to do it, and then say "I am new to wikipedia", which, if it is IA logged out, is a blatant fib. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this person lies about their IP editing when violations of WP:MULTIPLE are pointed out. They have been lying about this for years now. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As an admin can you provide clarification on this formatting dispute?

Hi please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korn where I have posted a dispute over how current band members should be listed on a band article. An editor claims his way is "how Wikipedia does it" but it is not a standard I see anywhere else except that page. I have attempted to find an article giving a correct way to format it but i'm unable to find anything addressing this specific issue. Thanks. JugulatorJJ (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge discussion notice

An article or articles that you have been involved in editing, r.e.: Soap Opera Digest Awards / Soapy Awards, has been proposed for a merge. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going >>>here<<<, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

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: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

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) 14:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

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: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Good article drive notice

This message has been sent to users signed up for the Good articles newsletter. Add or remove your name from the list to subscribe or unsubscribe from future updates. Alternatively, to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

-- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Bias

Other users have demonstrated the claims made are not neutral. Links to radical activist groups violate Wikipedia’s standards for evidence. ABA:I regularly states they do not endorse individuals or organizations. Additionally, the name of the organization is incorrect throughout the article and the links from the radical activists. Drvenkman9 (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Their statements are concealing their true nature. They celebrated the successful legal defense of JRC by Robert Sherman, JRC's private lawyer, by giving him an award. Pretty tough to explain that away. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

T.I. discography

hi Binksternet, you reverted my edit regarding a collaboration project by T.I., that album is listed on T.I. main page as a collaboration alongside rap group PSC. its not a random made up release and is a collab work of music. if I include a iTunes refrence link would you still revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.248.132 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I'm not seeing that T.I. is involved. Do you have a source? Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSC_(group) PSC is T.I.'s rap group, and they released the studio album under Grande Hustle which is T.I.'s label. the group is based in Atlanta Georgia https://www.discogs.com/TI-Presents-The-PC-25-To-Life/master/205232 https://music.apple.com/us/album/25-to-life/79984675 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.248.132 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

But that just shows T.I. is a member of PSC. It doesn't say he is collaborating with PSC to create the album 25 to Life. A collaborator is coming from outside the group, but T.I. is already inside the group. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

right, should it be titled as a group album if I was to include it on TI DISCOGRAPHY page - also when you scroll down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.I. its listed as a collab album.

Not a collaboration album. If T.I. is a member of a group, that's not a collaboration. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

ok if I want to include this album on ti discography page can I add it as a group album. let me know please I don't want to you to revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.248.132 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's a PSC album. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

ok I will edit at a later date — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.248.132 (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for helping guide me on the right path with reliable sourcing, it's really helped a lot, I think I've become a way better editor now, thanks! Category adder :D (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome! Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Odal Rune

Hi Binksternet. I'm willing to compromise a bit. Since Odal (rune) lacks a great deal of content, we can include the CPAC stage edit (the one sentence you included seems fine to me). However, it's not due for the Conservative Political Action Conference page. I really don't want to edit war with you, so can you please self-revert on that page? ‎ Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I can see you are up to three reverts today at the CPAC article. I disagree with you that the information is WP:UNDUE. The issue is continuing to grow in the media. Our readers expect to see at least something about it. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, I'm not seeing the information growing in the media. Only very poor sources, such as TMZ or The Daily Kos, are reporting on this nonsense. I don't think readers care too much about Twitter conspiracy theories. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Reuters, The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The Independent "very poor sources." Radio Adept (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

CPAC section blanking

Right before Conservative Political Action Conference became extended-protected, a user somehow managed to sneak in a blanking of the entire section Nazi symbol-like stage shape, saying on the talk page that "there is no consensus for including this material here". It's unlikely there will be consensus for such an inherently politically charged topic, yet the notability is beyond question—it's been covered by The Guardian and Reuters like I already mentioned, but now also by The Independent and The Washington Post. (The user's motives are also suspect, since their talk page is littered with sanctions about political topics.)

I can't revert the blanking myself because of the protection. Would you mind interfering? Radio Adept (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Abortion in the US article

How were MY changes on the article violating NPOV? You've just restored the NPOV violations! Find me where in the body it discusses "increased access to birth control has been statistically linked to reductions in the abortion rate" because I can wait. The fact of the matter is it isn't there, and we on an encyclopedia are supposed to objectively reference two sides in a debate without siding with one personally as editors with our own sources. The article at present effectively says, "There's a debate going on between A and B, A believes this while B believes this. Now here's some evidence for B's side." That's not NPOV, it's just WP:OR bringing in your own sources to bolster a viewpoint in a debate when said viewpoint is not covered elsewhere in the article, which is a violation of the lede. Davefelmer (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources are cited, and very clear about the scientifically valid conclusion.

Increased access to birth control means fewer unintended pregancies. Fewer unintended pregnancies means a reduction in abortions. I don't know what kind of problem you have with these facts; they are totally verifiable.

If a debate is between people who hold a scientifically valid position, and people who don't, we would be mistaken to give the two sides equal footing. They are not equal participants in the debate. The science deniers are necessarily taking the minor position.

You are correct that the lead section supplies some birth control information not found in the article body. The solution to that, of course, is to add the information to the article body. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether they are scientifically valid conclusions or not, the fact of the matter is that the information is not covered extensively in the body so is unsuitable for the lead. Your point about scientifically valid views and not are irrelevant here and introduce a level of personalisation to the article that is unencyclopedic. The article isn't a battleground for one view vs the other, it is simply to spell out the seperate viewpoints in a clear and concise encyclopedic manner without letting personal feeling get involved. And there is nowhere else in the article to reasonably include the information, BECAUSE the article isn't about who is right or wrong and the MERITS of either side. Trying to deliberately jam it in somewhere for the sole purpose of then trying to include it in the lead would be improper and subject to reversion. The other editor was right to remove it. Davefelmer (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The words you use don't match Wikipedia policy. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Which do you mean? Do you mean when I tried to clean up the wording in the other line about the time periods for when both parties adopted their modern stances on the subject? In which case, do you have an alternative preference, and what about the wording do you think was unencyclopedic? I think leaving it worded like the Republican Party only opposed abortion in the late 1900s and early 2000s is confusing and 'in the modern era' would suit much better, but happy to discuss! Davefelmer (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Republican Party

Your partial revert on Republican Party (United States) is completely off base as well. I'm not sure why you followed me to the article nor whether this is a more personal political agenda type of thing or a belief that using a reliable source is sufficient for any information inclusion type of thing, but it isn't an accurate reflection of project rules either way. This is the entire "Education" section of the article:

"In 2012, the Pew Research Center conducted a study of registered voters with a 35–28 Democrat-to-Republican gap. They found that self-described Democrats had an eight-point advantage over Republicans among college graduates and a fourteen-point advantage among all post-graduates polled. Republicans had an eleven-point advantage among white men with college degrees; Democrats had a ten-point advantage among women with degrees. Democrats accounted for 36% of all respondents with an education of high school or less; Republicans accounted for 28%. When isolating just white registered voters polled, Republicans had a six-point advantage overall and a nine-point advantage among those with a high school education or less.[307] Following the 2016 presidential election, exit polls indicated that "Donald Trump attracted a large share of the vote from whites without a college degree, receiving 72 percent of the white non-college male vote and 62 percent of the white non-college female vote." Overall, 52% of voters with college degrees voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, while 52% of voters without college degrees voted for Trump.[308]"

Where do you see sufficient information to say that throughout the entire 21st century, "people with less education" are a strong voting bloc for the party, let alone worded like that?? It literally just references two sources from two elections, ad uses language nothing like what's attempted to be inserted into the intro. The intro sources are the height of WP:OR, brought in individually to serve an agenda purpose having not been discussed in the body, on top of being cherry picked for I presume hostile purposes. For instance, the "Demographics" section just above the "Education" section denotes how high income voters tend to vote Republican, but I suspect the editors that have inserted and fought for "people with less education" will be less enthusiastic shall we say about including that piece of information.

And it's the same story with "white men". The article body repeatedly says that men tend to vote Republican, just like the Democratic Party (United States) article shows women tend to vote for them without referring to individual racial breakdowns. Even the source in question introduced into the lead shows that men tend to vote Republican before breaking it down by race, where it's been cherry picked out despite the racial breakdown not discussed again in the article. And like before, I suspect the editors fighting for this would not be so happy to break it down further by gender and reference a majority of white women voting Republican while leaving it as just women of colour on the Democratic party article, or introduce "low income black women" or something as a key voting block for the democratic party article that can be similarly cherry-picked.

In light of the above, I ask you to reconsider and revert your partial revert or give me your support to do it myself because between following me to the article and the rational I appear to be getting, it's not a good look mate. Davefelmer (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my behavior, you are in the right place.

If you want to discuss the topic, the article talk page is the best place. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I am discussing your reversion on the article but I suppose specifically following me to the article in order to revert my edit would qualify under behavioural queries that I'd like an explanation for. I would be happy to transfer over the content discussion to the article talkpage itself though as we discuss the behavioural elements here, unless you would be happy to go and revert your WP:HOUNDING changes under which circumstances there'd be nothing more to discuss. Davefelmer (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Your talk page is on my watchlist because of previous conversations. This morning while sipping coffee I saw this question from Bishonen on your talk page which sparked my interest in what you might be doing to that article and other political articles. I thought your pruning job at the RBG bio was okay, and same with your trim at conservatives. But I did not think your Rush Limbaugh whitewashing was good, nor your abortion changes. And I agreed with Bishonen that your Republican edits weren't good.

It's very common for me to look through the editing history of someone who has shown disruptive biases in editing. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the change back to the long standing version on Rush Limbaugh was not "white-washing", it was removing a WP:UNDUE addition that used one of many general opinion pieces and write ups of him as if it was a consensus view, when the reality is there were and are many views of him ie https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2021/loved-and-loathed-the-death-of-talk-radio-legend-rush-limbaugh/, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/rush-limbaugh-a-broadcast-radio-legend and https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/2/17/22287622/rush-limbaugh-dead-conservative-talk-radio-host-was-70-cancer-obituary that contrast or don't reflect the same view of the article in question. Based on WP:DUE, and the absence of explicit references to him in the way the sentence described in the article body, the phrase doesn't deserve standalone recognition over all the other viewpoints and violates project rules so should be removed.

And I'm sorry but I don't understand your general angle at all. Just because you have someone's talkpage on your watchlist does not give you the leeway to supervise all of their edits and stalk them across the project undoing whichever ones you see fit. And if you have an issue with one or more of my edits, you can take your queries TO my talkpage and I can respond to you regarding them there. But you have 0 jurisdiction to go cart blanche stalking people, I mean there are literal project rules against this which I presume you know, it's called WP:HOUNDING and I would urge you to read the page. As far as I know, you're not some kind of major administrator, nor are you even a general admin, and considering I have gotten no more than a 1 month topic sanction in my last 6 years on the project, even if you were an admin there would still be no case for needing to supervise me claiming 'disruptive editing'. I mean, you claim you "agree" with Bishonen's comment this morning, but your change wasn't even the same as the one he was talking about! And if you saw him calmly ask me a question regarding the change on my talkpage, you could have just waited for me to answer back in a timely fashion as I did and then weighed in there yourself. Yet you instead went and stalked me to the article and just reverted my change with not even an edit summary, then said you supported his claim that my edit wasn't good when it wasnt even that edit that he was talking about and he had never even said that they werent good but instead had asked a simple question about some of the changes. And you want to talk to me about disruptive editing?

In regards to the Republican Party article itself, I have answered all of your objections in great detail, referencing multiple project rules as the basis for my actions, and am now asking you to revert the changes that you only originally made by WP:HOUNDING me, both to that article and to Rush Limbaugh. If any further objections are raised by a regular editor on one of the particular article afterwards, I will happily take it the article talkpage and hash it out there. But as it stands, your Hounding edits are the only remaining issues with the changes. Davefelmer (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hounding is a serious matter; I would not do that. What I'm doing is following policy by "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." I'm not trying to shut you down or get revenge.

Regarding my partial revert, I restored the fact that people with less education are registered more often as Republican. It's an important part of the topic, widely discussed and carefully researched. If you wish to remove any mention of education level from the lead section, start a discussion about that aspect on the article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS - Music#Lists

Hi Binksternet, i notice you use Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Lists to delete lists of artists from genre pages, but what applies to record labels that list artist rosters? for example the likes of Ghostly International, or Minus (record label) etc. personally i think these should be pulled, much of this stuff appears promotional rather than notable, is there any guidance on this kind of list usage within a label articles? Acousmana (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The guideline WP:INDISCRIMINATE is your weapon for pruning excessive lists. At the very least, WP:LISTPEOPLE should be applied to get rid of entries without Wikipedia biographies.

The same problem is present at lots of label articles.

Similarly, there is no guidance for lists of labels in a genre article, or lists of albums/songs. I think if an artist, label, album or song is important to a genre then the reason why should be described in prose in the article body. And for labels, I think important artists should be mentioned in the article body, describing the timing and the reasons, etc. Binksternet (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, that's helpful, thanks for the pointers! Acousmana (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Bill Carrothers

Do you have reason to doubt the birth date of Bill Carothers?
Vmavanti (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the reliability of the editor who put in month and day without any reference. I don't doubt the year. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Most birth dates in Wikipedia articles don't have references, especially in jazz articles. What is your doubt based on?
Vmavanti (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I come at it from the other direction. I don't see any confirmation of the man's birthday in Google Books or regular Google search or even social media, so it fails WP:V – a hard policy. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rin Tin Tin

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rin Tin Tin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rin Tin Tin

The article Rin Tin Tin you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Rin Tin Tin for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Tupac shakur

Hi, since you run the tupac wikipedia in English, I just wanted to tell you that the Tupac wikipedia in Italian is terribly done and tupac is described as a bad, rapist and violent gangster. Could you go and see it? Vivalaconoscenza (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but my Italian language skills are horrible, almost non-existent. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but first they put the musical genres at random, using all music as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivalaconoscenza (talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "Tupac Amaru Shakur , aka 2Pac and Makaveli ( New York , 16 June 1971 - Las Vegas , 13 September 1996 ), was a rapper , activist and actor US , regarded as one of the best and most influential of all time rapper, [2 ] [3] despite his short musical career and his death when he was only twenty-five years old. [4]

Born as Lesane Parish Crooks (later changed in 1972) in the neighborhood of Harlem , New York , he moved to Los Angeles in 1988. In 1989 he met his future manager and girlfriend (from that period 1989-1990) Leila Steinberg , Leila gave him an audition with the Digital Underground group and was immediately accepted into the group, until 1991 Shakur did not even do a track with Digital Underground but on January 1, 1991 the track "Same Song" was released in which Shakur makes a verse . With the release of his first album 2Pacalypse Now (1991), he became a central figure in the black community, introducing social criticism into the genre at a time when thepolitical rap was dominant in the mainstream. [5] In 1992 he founded the Thug Life group together with Big Syke .

In 1993 he released his second album Strictly 4 My NIGGAZ album with social and Gangsta tracks which brought Shakur to international success, in fact he made several tours around 1993-1994 around Europe , in the same year he was accused by one of his fans " Ahyanna Jackson "for rape and sexual abuse and will meet rapper The Notorious BI G. in a hotel room in California. In 1994 his first group album (with Thug Life , his second official group) " Thug Life Volume 1 " will be released which will be the album with which 2Pac began to enter the figure of the gangster and the "boss playa", in same year bbe relationships with many famous stars like Madonna ,Left Eye and also with the Italian-American actress Nadia Cassini On the night of November 30, 1994 while he was at the Quad Studios who was to record a verse for a friend of Notorious BIG (Lil Jon) he will be wounded with 5 shots in different parts of the body including the head and from there Shakur will become more moody, very depressed and trust his companions less as he believed he was one of The Notorious BIG henchmen and that his friend Stretch (member of Thug Life ), but in reality the one who organized that attack was Haitian Jack, former partner of Tupac. In 1995 he will be sentenced to 4 years for sexual abuse and his third album Me Against the World will be released(recorded in 1993-1994) in which Shakur vents his frustration more and in this album Shakur spoke more than all his other albums about his intimacy and his weakness. [6] During the time he was in prison he married Keyishia Morris but divorced her after 3 months, and after the divorce during his last term in prison he had an affair with Desiree Smith. In prison after he decided to disband Thug Life with his cousin Yaki Kadafi he decided to create the Outlawz . On October 12, 1995 Shakur will be released from prison thanks to Suge Knight CEO of Death Row Recordspaying him $ 1.4 million for bail in exchange, Shakur had to sign a contract with Death Row Records and Interscope Entertainmen to make 3 albums with them. As soon as he arrived at Death Row Records he immediately concentrated on making music in fact in November 1995 the first single with Death Row Records "California Love" will be released which became Tupac's most famous single.

In that [7] In 1996 he released his fourth and fifth double album " All Eyez On Me " which became the best-selling Hip-Hop record and also one of the best-selling records in the United States. In the single " How Do U Want It (sensual single that is part of the double album" All Eyez On Me ") they added the famous diss track" Hit'Em Up "in which Shakur declares war on the East Coast and accuses rapper The Notorious BIG who "fucked" his wife Faith Evans . In June 1996 he had an affair with Michel 'and thanks to Quincy Jones Shakur founded his distribution label " Makaveli Records " which was to be a company label of Death Row Records and of "Death Row East" which was to replace Interscope Entertainment , several rappers and artists signed or were about to sign with the Makaveli Records as "[Boot Camp Clik]", " Big Daddy Kane ", " Outlawz" , " Greg Nice" , " Craig Mack " and " Lil 'Kim ", " Run-DMC ", " Jennifer Lopez " and " Nadia Cassini And during the period of June and July he will record with the New York group " Boot Camp Clik " the double album " One Nation " which was used to calm the feud between West Coast and East Coast , but unfortunately the album remained unreleased. In July 1996 Shakur works together with Outlawz for the album " Makaveli The Don Killuminati: the 7 day theory " which is an album full of dissing. On September 6th Shakur will record his latest music video " Toss It Up " and will record his 3 latest tracks "Hell 4 A Hustler", "All Out" and "Ready 2 Rumble" (for theSuge Knight , Outlawz , Nadia Cassini , Kidada Jones , Craig Mack and Run-DMC to watch Tyson's match against Seldon and to play at "Club 662", fifteen minutes before the match Shakur had a fight with Orlando Anderson (his killer) and beat him up along with his entire crew and missed Tyson's bout. As soon as he returned to his room to change Kidada Jones asked him what happened and Shakur told him everything and Jones stopped him from going to Club 662 but Shakur went there anyway, while he was in a BMWwith Knight stopped at the traffic lights between the "Koval" and the "Flamingo" a hand came out of the window of a white Cadillac and 12 shots went off, 3 reached Shakur and one reached Knight's head, the last words of Shakur were "Fuck You!" (Fuck you) who told a policeman who asked him who shot him. Tupac was revived 3 times but there was nothing to be done and on September 13, 1996 Shakur died after 6 days of agony following the shooting in Las Vegas. In November 1996 his sixth album Makaveli The Don Killuminati: the 7 day theory was released." I translated the page introduction to you, they wrote all these things without a source and many are either irrelevant or some are not even true, Instead of describing the struggles and its revolutionary character, they have dwelled on these things and do not even want anyone to modify them with serious sources or ban them.

Cantinflas

You can explain me what is this edit? --Eightbenny (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is a correction of your mistake. You added a category that was not supported by article text. You have been edit-warring about it, too. You will be blocked if this continues. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Who was block me?, and in Wikipedia is prohibited add categories if in categories doesn't text about?, wow, what a level of editing, champ!. --Eightbenny (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on Give Yourself a Try

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Hi there! Please do not removed sourced content from Give Yourself a Try. Specifically, you have chosen to ignore this source, which deems it a fizzing indie rock song, and this source, which calls it a "a remarkably lo-fi return from a band who rarely do things by half-measures". If you continue to remove sourced content and engage in WP:OR, I will unfortunately be forced to contact an administrator. Thank you! Giacobbe ^talk 17:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

All of this should be at Talk:Give Yourself a Try.

The lo-fi bit is not explicit enough to set the song's genre. NME is saying the song is more lo-fi than the band's usual stuff, which is not the same as saying it is a lo-fi song.

I am not seeing "fizzing indie rock song" in the Independent article, but that could be because I'm not a subscriber. When I search Google for "fizzing indie rock song" I get "Mortal Sport Argonaut" by Pet Shimmers as described here. Nothing comes up for "Give Yourself a Try", which makes me wonder.

At any rate, the song's genre should be set by multiple sources agreeing, not by one source saying one thing and another source saying another thing. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

If you're using Chrome, just disable Javascript for the page, which allows you to bypass the paywall and read the article. In terms of lo-fi, it is not sourced as a genre, which is why it is not included in the infobox. As NME does not specifically call it a "lo-fi song", it's not listed as a "genre". While it is not my place to interpret what the author was trying to convey, WP's own lo-fi music page describes it as "a music or production quality in which elements usually regarded as imperfections of a recording or performance are audible, sometimes as a deliberate aesthetic choice". I wouldn't even consider it a genre, anyways. Either way, I don't understand the point of removing content from a reliable source? Additionally, I have made a mention of it at the talk page. Giacobbe ^talk 18:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rin Tin Tin

The article Rin Tin Tin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rin Tin Tin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent review! Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

British VS English

Hello, I need to continue the edit discussion we began yesterday over the Pulp and indie music where British was changed to English, before you changed it all back to British again, and I briefly changed about half back to English, and then you reverted those back to British. Obviously with the disruptions of yesterday left behind, we can work together to sort this issue out. You are a US editor. Our conventions this side of the great lake, and I do feel strongly about this, is that the Brits are all different peoples, but British clumps them under one umbrella. If you take for example the pre-existing music acts, Fatboy Slim is English. The Proclaimers are Scottish. Tom Jones is Welsh. And so on. We can't change those to British and the same should apply over yesterday's edits. I am not making changes until I see your response. Thx. David Pahroharho (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

OK I'll go ahead and change them. Thanks. David Pahroharho (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

David Pahroharho, my stance is that we should not be deciding this stuff by using logic or reasoning or our own internal barometer; we should be looking at the media and following their lead. Which is why I reverted the Estelle = English stuff, because most of the media describe Estelle as British.[3] "Clumping" is perfectly acceptable to me if the media does it. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Well ok that's one way of looking at it, but then why call Proclaimers Scottish? David Pahroharho (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Follow the media style and you'll be good. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, that's another sock and has been blocked as such. Pahunkat (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Live '84

Hello. I restored the label ref to Live '84, as it provides a catalog number (which was already in the article) and credits. If you still think this is unncessary, we can certainly discuss it. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The album is its own reference for information that can be found on the album cover or on the media inside. It's possible to use Template:Cite AV media to let people know you're looking at the original work. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

True--but did this edit go against policy? Or is it simply your preference that it not be there? Would you have reverted if it was sourced to Goldmine, etc.? The "retail" part is simply how SST has designed its site. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I just thought it was promotional because the album was offered for sale. The policy page WP:NOT says Wikipedia is not for promotion. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I'm not going to change it again, for many reasons. I think, especially in an online encyclopedia, that it's useful to link to the label; it's true that for many independents, those links are to "Buy Me!" pages... ;) Caro7200 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Rent control

Did you mean to revert back to the IP's version of the lead, or was that some kind of edit conflict? - MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I meant to restore cited text introduced by the IP, as well as text I composed myself. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Please participate at the talk page, then - we are trying to reach consensus on that disputed sentence of the lead section. - MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you just did! Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand why MrOllie has deleted these edits. I assume good faith, but it does not hold up from any rational, scientific or encyclopaedic point of view that the second sentence of the article is this: "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing". I have explained this in the talk page consistently. 193.52.24.13 (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If I Were Brittania I'd Waive the Rules

Pretty amazing--I went through all the Google hits, 13 pages of it, and NOTHING, nothing was written about this that the internet archived or indexed. For a pretty bad album it's actually not terrible--but I bet I'm the only person in a decade who's listened to it. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, my. I guess that means I have to listen to it. But what am I doing otherwise? Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I found the album on YouTube uploaded by a fan. Great stuff! The lyrics and singing are secondary to the crack band, who prove themselves agile with regard to changing time signatures. They know how to rock the pocket. Some fun early proto-metal chugging is in there, and a song with Queen's John Deacon–style electric guitar. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I had it on vinyl ages ago--got it on sale, back when I had no money at all. And why it was on sale seemed clear: it's a bit esoteric for all but a certain intersection of metalheads and progrock fans. Listening to it again last night I realized yeah, it's not bad. That one review on AllMusic said that "Black Velvet Stallion" is nice but you'll be asleep by the time the fun starts; I disagree. But sources, man--I'd love to improve that article a bit. Any ideas? Drmies (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Without the track listing immediately at hand I first thought that they were saying "black velvet galleon" which would have been even more phantasmagoric.

Lemme give it some thought. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I just realized why I never understood "Anne Neggen" until yesterday: when I had that album I didn't really speak (or think) English). In Dutch "Anne" is two syllables... :-) Drmies (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Aha! Wordplay along the lines of Again and Again and Again and Again. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

With a few more sentences in that tiny stub, I expanded it by 300%. Not much more can be done. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting my edits?

I’m not evading a block, I don’t know anything about a block, that’s why I created an account. SilkSonic (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I explained it at User talk:SilkSonic#Wikipedia blocking policy. You need to appeal the block set by NinjaRobotPirate on the previous Texas IP address, Special:Contributions/65.36.59.228. Otherwise, you are evading a block, and all of your edits are subject to reversion per WP:EVADE. That's why I keep removing your stuff. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Swastika vs Hakenkreuz

The Nazi symbol is the Hakenkreuz not the Swastika. You erroneously called the Swastika an English word which it is not, neither are. Swastika is a Sanskrit word meaning well being. Swa=good astik= state of. The Nazi Germans never use the word Swastika, they specifically called it the Hakenkreuz. Haken=Hooked, Kreuz=cross. Use the appropriate historical terms when referring to the symbol. Rancid Boar (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. This is English Wikipedia, and the English word is swastika. It doesn't matter what the German word is. The symbol is the same no matter what the language. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Underworld Unleashed

You may find this article, its history, and its main contributors of interest. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know that article. I started a sockpuppet case page on the person. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

What's the best way to deal with recalcitrant editors?

Hi

About two weeks ago, I encountered Usagidot (talk · contribs), who was editing several articles to push the view that the comfort women were willing prostitutes, and I saw you also got slightly involved. Now he's back, and he won't listen to my arguments. You seem to have a lot of experience with these things, while I do not, so I thought I'd ask you: Do I take this to the dispute resolution noticeboard, the neutral point of view noticeboard, Edit warring and 3RR, straight to vandalism or do I do something else? Knuthove (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The guy is not here to improve the encyclopedia; rather, he's here to Right Great Wrongs according to his own viewpoint. Since his existence is at cross-purposes with the encyclopedia, he can be reported to WP:ANI and blocked. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks for putting a warning on his talk page. I will take it to ANI if he doesn't stop now. Knuthove (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet 　Hi, I think I told Knuthove that former comfort women sued Japan in 1991, and I HAVE the complaint. Moon Ok-ju asked $110,000 for her unpaid balances. I have real evidece, but he doesn't have any. The important thing is that his translate is completely wrong. Do you support uncertain information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usagidot (talk • contribs) 17:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet 　I forgot to tell you this, there are job posts for back then in Korean and Japanese. I told it to Knuthove of course, However, he denies those facts, because he doesn't understand except English. Let me know if you have any evidence or if you need any evidence. You'll know who correct is. And please do not forget, that page explains what 'Ianfu' means. Translate is not correct.

Knuthove You need to show me compelling evidence if you say you are right. But I haven't seen it. I said I HAVE complaint when they sued Japan in 1991. Also, I shared real comfort women pictures. We really need to sort things out. Where's your evidence?

I took it to ANI, and Usagidot is now blocked. Thanks again for your help Binksternet! Knuthove (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Past Masters

Hi Binksternet - Teahouse volunteer and major Beatles fan here. I was viewing the edit history of an IP poster who posted some nonsense, and saw a long string of edits to Beatles songs where the Past Masters template was added and then reverted by you. When the original Beatles albums were released in the UK, they were different than the ones released in the US. The difference was the singles and B sides, which make up Past Masters. If you wanted to have all the Beatles music on CD, you had to have Past Masters or you were missing a large number of their best songs. Here's an interesting article about the collection. [[4]] Since the collection is much more than a greatest hits collection, from a historical perspective, I would probably have left the template there. Cheers. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I sympathize with the fact that Past Masters is more than the usual compilation, but I still don't think we need a footer navbox to represent membership in that collection. For instance, the song "Hey Jude" still has four footer navboxes after I removed Past Masters and Julian Lennon, and each one of them hangs together with a coherent theme. You can riffle through the UK best-selling singles by year, or you can peruse all the singles released by the Beatles. On the other hand, the theme of the Past Masters collection is tenuous: "these marvelous songs were never put together as a group so we put them together as a group." I'm not convinced we will ever need this template. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe it's because I'm such a Beatles fan. Happy editing! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

RfPP ECP requests in error

Hey. While there's no real harm, I have noted on multiple occasions at RfPP that you've been requesting WP:ECP in error when a mere semi would do. Just a bit puzzling to me, is all. Regards, El_C 13:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I had been thinking semi was only for IPs, but it includes newly registered users. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Structuring

I would have appreciated if you had contacted me once more before reporting me as some sort of vandal. And though it should go without saying, I am not one.

It would have been helpful if you had provide further clarification before claiming such. The impression was that the Sputnik sourcing, which I attempted to and believed to be resolved, was the primary issue regarding close paraphrasing on that particular article. Upon inspecting the list you wrote on the article's talk, now it is clear there is much more to do. Reflecting on some of my previous edits, I may have closely paraphrased in certain instances. I suppose I often expect the pages to develop and their prose be reworded further as time goes on, which is usually what happens. But more often then not it turns out that I am essentially the only one editing something besides the genre boxes on certain articles. I will work to go back and further restructure the wording of the article and any others like it. -- LupEnd007 (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No, you're not a vandal. But I reported your copyright violations because they are a giant problem, and I wanted you to stop. You appeared to be unconcerned about the issue, fixing only one instance of it. It will be good to see you going through your previous contributions and completely rewording them, or quoting the source with attribution. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

As I previously explained, Sputnik was the only one you cited. In retrospect, perhaps preceding it with "For example ..." would have provided the scope of the issue. That said, it actually was not the only sentence I restructured. Either way, reflexively citing me as a vandal when you are well aware I am not just to draw attention because you inaccurately presumed I am unconcerned is quite disconcerting. Rather than making a sweeping judgment based on an opaque, five-word edit summary, you could have simply tried to gain insight with further communication. Regardless, it will take some time to perform those rewording edits we have both now mentioned. I will most likely look to WP:CLD from here. -- LupEnd007 (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

CLD? No. The problem is still standing, the issue is still on the table. It's not time to close the discussion and move on. Closure will come with the removal of all existing copyright violations, and especially with the adoption of a new style of writing encyclopedic prose. Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Quite aware of all of that, as I have already acknowledged the scope of the issue and clearly articulated that I plan on addressing it at least twice now. My mistake, I intended to include a Wikilink to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, which I will looking to more closely as a guide going forward. Disregard that last link, it was late at the time. -- LupEnd007 (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Got it! Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for reverting edits on Terry Crews.

LolaRulz (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Miaow! Thanks for the warm fuzzy with little needle teeth. ;) Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The kerfuffle on Trumpism

I was personally offended by your assumption of bad faith. If you look at the authorship of the original unblurred image used in the article, and the my authorship percentage to the Trumpism article, you will perhaps appreciate a different perspective on why I go to great pains to solicit input when there is a dispute (this time originating on commons) regarding the article's content. J JMesserly (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Mea culpa; I thought you were the troublemaker. Sorry to have jumped to conclusions. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It was a reasonable assumption given the appearances, but I took it personally because it came from an experienced Wikipedian. It was especially time consuming to have read nearly all of those 266 references for the article and to have attempted to compose a fair, one or two sentence summary of each of them. There have been some improvements from the article as of the end of september when I first came across it, and hopefully the information from these diverse authorities has benefitted the quarter million readers who have viewed it since then. It is a difficult subject.J JMesserly (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

"Difficult" doesn't cover half of it. You're wading deep into the swamp in that article. Thanks for trying your best to make it informative. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Rent control

I have opened a new discussion here that may be of interest to you. 193.52.24.13 (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The Punk music Barnstar

		The Punk music Barnstar
		For your work on Whip It --evrik (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

A new wave of punk? Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Modest flowers

Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I wish I knew more about Yoninah's off-wiki life. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Quick question

Hey! I have a quick question regarding the situation with 12.203.180.34. If they had been the only substantial editor at As I Am (Justin Bieber song), what would be the proper procedure for the article? I was thinking that the article would be redirected, as the IP added content to the page (basically a G5 but not actually deleting the page as AshMusique is definitely not a sockpuppet), and I just wanted clarification as you seem like a sock expert. I know this sounds a bit stupid, but I’m genuinely curious, as I’m involved with a couple sockpuppets/LTA cases. Thanks! D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 02:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Doggy54321, if the topic is really notable, then we would be hurting the encyclopedia by stuffing it back into a redirect. In this case, the song is charting globally, so it is notable. The best we can do is to remove whatever color commentary the sockpuppet added. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that all makes sense. I don't see anything detrimental in the article right now, as I would have already removed all that when I Doggy-ified (super lame term I just coined for when I go through an article and make sure everything is correct and in the right place) the article, but if you find anything, please do remove it. Thanks! D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 03:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Category:Grammy Award for Best Immersive Audio Album. Thank you. I mentioned you as your actions were effectively under discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I explained my guideline in reverting the red category was WP:REDNO. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Giant (band)

Howdy bink, I was wondering if you could help with a conflict currently happening frequently on giant's page, there is an ip user making un-constructive edits, and I can't just keep reverting their edits because of the three revert rule, so I thought I'd turn to you for help Category adder :D (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing? False.

Listen, it is not vandalism. It is just one of the things that were influenced by. And why would I do vandalism? Have you even seen both of the music videos? It is not unreferenced, it has a reference link right after the sentence. Even though I would have fixed it with placing "the song's music video" instead of "the song". - Rheathesecond (talk)

What part of WP:No original research don't you understand? You compared two videos and added your personal analysis to the encyclopedia. Not allowed.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of all the literature on a topic. It's not intended as an opportunity for editors to publish their thoughts.

If a music critic has made the same observation about the videos, then we can tell the reader that fact, citing the critic. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You reported me to AIV

Hi. Why did you report me for something that wasn't vandalism, let alone reportable at all? versacespaceleave a message! 22:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought I saw a violation of 3RR, but I now realize the first of your four edits wasn't a reversion. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay? But then an experienced editor such as you would report me to the edit warring noticeboard rather than the vandalism one? Is that not correct? versacespaceleave a message! 22:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Cold War History Museum Voice of America edits

I have provided the sources you requested and also disclosed a potential COI as Cold War History Museum is a project launched by Ted Lipien, a former longtime Voice of America journalist, broadcaster and manager, but never a political appointee of any administration in any VOA positions.

Incorrect warning of being involved in an edit war

The removal of the criticism section on Ruby_K._Payne was done after a discussion on the Talk page for that article. I am reverting your revert. If you feel the criticism section should remain then start a new thread of conversation in the Talk page.

April 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ruby K. Payne. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cold War Radio Museum (talk • contribs)

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.150.117 (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

WAP

Why not quote his tweet? --Jamirowikee (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

How about WP:TONE? There's also WP:BLPSPS which is final. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Focus on content not personal attacks please

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.150.117 (talk • contribs)

Good advice coming from the person who accused other editors of being "liberal douchebags", closing with "Fu-Q very much". Once was not enough so you aimed the same remark at another editor but with an additional nasty comment about their username style.[5] You're indisputably an expert at staying cool. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I have grown as a person and come to see that it's counterproductive to behave like that. While the liberal bias on Wikipedia is rampant, I should have chosen to communicate my concerns in a more civil way. I hope you will follow my lead and be more respectful in the future. 75.166.150.117 (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You'll excuse me if I disbelieve you've "grown as a person" in the ten weeks since that personal attack. Actions speak louder, and your future actions will show the extent of your growth.

By the way, the notional "liberal bias" you complain about is the result of science, education and fact-checking. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

IP now blocked. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. There were two IPs used by the same person. Special:Contributions/75.166.140.195 and Special:Contributions/75.166.150.117. They were probably using Special:Contributions/75.166.137.201 a year ago. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Drmies: the old IP is blocked, not the current one.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for wielding the mop. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo; I saw that. Dinner is over, and for dessert I did this. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Bad Bunny

Greetings. I would kindly like to ask that the edits for Bad Bunny’s page stating that he is a professional wrestler please be removed. This is false information. Megppg99 (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You have seen the Rolling Stone article about his wrestling debut, haven't you? Wrestling is all a show, anyway, so if you "compete" in the ring and get paid, you are professional wrestler. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Patrisse Cullors

With this edit you removed this source with the edit summary "Fox source cannot be used". I did not see that website listed at WP:RSP or WP:RSPSS. Has there been a consensus someplace about this source? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Just in this case; with "Marxist" in the article title it falls far below the norm. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

How does having "Marxist" in the title prohibit this source from being used? Has there been a consensus about using sources with "Marxist" in their title? What "norm" are you referring to? In other words, would you please revert your edit. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The Fox article title by itself is a political slur, a violation of BLP. We don't need that source anyway, as the MSN source is sufficient. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

El Sobrante

Please take the time to source your inclusions. Thank you. Also - lists aren't necessarily the best way to fund a page. Please consider constructing the information you want to add into paragraphs. Finally, please double check that your inclusions for notability meet guidelines. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Famous_Residents — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pressingyourbuttons (talk • contribs) 17:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for adding references. However, one of the inclusions you re-added is sourced just with Wikipedia articles? That does not appear to qualify as a source. It is debatable that the other two meet criteria as defined in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Famous_Residents. Between those two, only Malloy seems to possibly warrant any inclusion. The other amounts to that "she died there". That does not appear to meet criteria. Her notability is not tied to the location, nor is it evident that she a resident, perhaps did she just happenened to be be there when she died? Maybe that fact is buried somewhere, but I did not find it.

And again, it would be better to put all of this into paragraphs versus a list.

Also - why are you now defining a request to add legitimate sources to an article as "an edit war"? That's unnecessary. You need to add your sources, and when your edits are reverted after failing to do so, that's not an "edit war". Pressingyourbuttons (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Famous Residents is an essay, not an official guideline or hard policy.

I'm not fooled by your new username and wikilawyering. This is the same shit that has been going on since 2007 at that page. Which is why I called it edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You clearly have some personal issue here and are under some false impression that this is YOUR page. It's not, it never will be, and you would probably benefit from walking away and calming down.Pressingyourbuttons (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

And for the record - if you actually manage to stop crapping your pants over this page - you might note that I have simply been working WITH you to improve the page - not against you as you seem to imagine. You reverted MY edits because they did not have sources. Fair enough. So I added the ones I could find back in with proper sources, You then added back ones without sources - repeatedly. That's you edit warring. Not me. Work for the page and TRY not to be the problem, kay'? Thanks! :) Pressingyourbuttons (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Enrique Iglesias nationality

Hi, you had reverted the edit I made on Enriques page regarding him being “Spanish-American”. You claimed he’s been an American since he was 6? Please explain how this is possible, because it takes years to become a US citizen. I also didn’t find any sources within his page claiming he had any citizenship in the Philippines. You claimed he sued Universal Music Group because they said he was not an American? That lawsuit was over royalties. No where on his page does it state he’s “American”. He may have dual citizenship in Spain and the US but that doesn’t make him American, it just makes him a US citizen. Which are two totally different things. Pillowdelight (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Having American citizenship means that we say the person born elsewhere is "elsewhere-American". Iglesias stated in his royalty lawsuit that he had been a citizen of "Florida" the whole time he had been signed to Universal. Of course, Florida is one of 50 states in the USA, so a citizen of Florida is necessarily a citizen of the USA.

Even if somone lacks official citizenship, a strong argument can be made that anyone who attended American schools while being raised in the USA is partly American by upbringing. Iglesias attended American schools from age 6 all the way through college. There's no problem with calling him Spanish-American. Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Okay but please provide sources where he states he’s a US citizen. Because there is none on his page and just because he’s lived in Florida at the age of 6 up until now does not automatically make him a US citizen — your argument isn’t telling me anything. You are aware Wikipedia uses sources and we have rules. Please also provide the Wikipedia rules on which it states it’s okay to refer someone as so and so’s nationality just because they’ve lived here for so many years... Makes no sense to me. There also isn’t any sources that tells me he moved here at the age of 6 either. If you can’t provide any Wikipedia rules or any sources of him being a US citizen then I would highly recommend you revert your edit back to saying he’s Spanish because that is literally all he is. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS:CONTEXTBIO says that a permanent resident of a country who became notable in that country is all part of the context of how and where they are famous. Iglesias is more successful in the US than any other country, selling a lot more copies in the US of every album he has released. If we aren't saying something about him being considered American by association, then we aren't properly representing his context. It does not matter so much on Wikipedia whether he is an official citizen or just a permanent resident of the US.

Some sources call him Spanish, but plenty of others call him Spanish-American:

• MTV wrote, " 'It's a balancing act to establish an English fanbase while trying to keep my Latin fans and press happy,' said the Spanish-American pop singer, thereby setting the tone for this year's Billboard Latin Music Conference."
• Tico Times wrote, "Spanish-American pop star Enrique Iglesias is the latest big name to sign up for the Festival Imperial..."
• West Virginia University newspaper wrote, "Spanish-American singer-songwriter Enrique Iglesias is back after a two-year hiatus..."
• E! Online wrote, "Are you unsure of what's going on in Enrique Iglesia's private life? That's because he makes it that way. The Spanish-American singer is known to shy away from the spotlight..."
• Hindustan Times wrote, "Spanish-American pop singer Enrique Iglesias’ plan to ski naked in Miami did not go well ..."
• Houston Chronicle wrote, "Iglesias share voices in the new single with Cuban singer and songwriter Descemer Bueno, who has previously composed several tracks for the Spanish-American artist."
• HuffPost wrote, "Spanish-American singer Enrique Iglesias got a little too personal during a meet and greet..."
• Associate Research Fellow James Barry of Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, mentions Iglesias in his book, Armenian Christians in Iran, ISBN 9781108429047. On page 203, an explanatory footnote says, "This was a reference to Enrique Iglesias, a Spanish-American pop singer."

So there is strong support in the literature for the combination of nationalities represented as "Spanish-American". Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: User_talk:Ariamanagment2021#Long-term abuse, socking, persistent promotion

Email-requested an WP:EF for this; hopefully this will reduce the continued abuse. Spencer^T•C 22:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Good idea! Thanks for doing that. Let's see if it's approved. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Underworld Unleashed article

Hi there. No, I'm not doing an edit war on this article; I made a new addition to it and I'm trying to get a friend of mine to print it out as a personal copy. Please let me put it back; I'm going to call him in a few minutes and when he makes the copy, I'll put it back to where it was before. I've done this before and no one else has complained. I'll put it back on tomorrow as soon as I confirm my friend has made the copy and that's a promise.Mcfoureyes (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not what Wikipedia is for. You are disrupting the page with your non-standard quoting style, excessive bolding, and all that unreferenced analysis. You are a persistent and continual violator of WP:No original research on that page. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Despite your accusations, I was going to do what I said I'd do. I hope my friend made the copy before he left work.

What's wrong with doing what I was doing? If you'd just been patient, you would've had the article back the way it was and that'd be the end of that.Mcfoureyes (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NOT and see where I'm coming from. Wikipedia pages are not meant to serve as your personal web host. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Believe me, that's wasn't my intention. I was just helping out a friend. A discarded version of an article shouldn't matter to anyone here. It's not as if I'm keeping on here forever or releasing it to the public on a permanent basis.Mcfoureyes (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

There are no special considerations allowed at WP:NOT. Get your own website. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

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) 02:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

please Stop

Every time I make an editing on Wikipedia, you decide to remove it... it’s very annoying cause I’m trying very hard to fill out the holds here on Wikipedia. And for the record I have never done any kind of vandalism. Please stop I don’t know why you are doing this. Sincerely N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.237.88.53 (talk • contribs)

You were blocked as Special:Contributions/93.164.22.202 after a huge amount of disruption, and you were recently rangeblocked as Special:Contributions/213.237.0.0/17, covering your current IP address. I think the rangeblock should be reinstated. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Let The Bad Times Roll, The Offspring

Let The Bad Times Roll - Music Video Live Q&A - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYONdydrz40 at 5:33

I am not sure how to insert this as a citation as it claims that YouTube is a banned reference, despite the fact this is an official Q&A hosted on the band's official YouTube. The only other place I can imagine you would find it is on the physical liner notes, so I'm not exactly sure what you want me to do.--2A00:23C6:CF09:6801:F160:E83D:6ACC:348F (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added it with the full YouTube link but for some reason a timestamp doesn't seem to work. Hopefully that's enough to satisfy you.--2A00:23C6:CF09:6801:F160:E83D:6ACC:348F (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Tony Levin

Hi! You reverted my contribution on So_(album), because Tony Levin is not credited for playing a Chapman Stick in the liner notes, which is obviously right (although he obviously did ;) ) However, I don't understand why you talk about "drumstick bass", which I didn't remove at all (it refers to Marotta playing Levin's bass with his drumsticks) ? Regards, David

I think we should stick (sorry) with what the sources say, no matter what can be deduced from listening. If a reliable commentator says Chapman Stick, we can cite that source. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

RE: Trumpism

Thank you for responding to my contribution. Sorry for the duplicate message but I received an instruction from Wikilinks after I sent you an email.

I am trying to improve this article by specifically challenging the sources used as being unreliable. These sources go on at length about what people who promote Trumpism think and feel and what they want. As I stated in my comment no one can understand what another person thinks or feels unless they are told, certainly not these Marxist liberal arts professors that are referenced. Fundamentally they are all incorrect and the article is too voluminous for me to waste my time to present competing references that challenge all of the incorrect statement in the article. Accurate references should come from sources who support Trumpism and understand what it is, not from those who oppose it from an outside viewpoint.

Fundamentally I’m stating that the entire article is a pile of dung. I provided an outline of what I know Trumpism is to serve as a starting point to reconstruct the article. I included a portion of President Trump’s inauguration address which is the skeleton of Trumpism and you can see from that perspective that the references used in the article get it entirely wrong.

I’m open to modifying my comment but as I said I’m not going to waste my time challenging the voluminous amount of misinformation contained in the article.

Good references on Trumpism would be authors who understand it:

The Case for Trump by Victor Davis Hanson https://www.amazon.com/Case-Trump-Victor-Davis-Hanson/dp/1541673557/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=The+case+for+trump&qid=1618927153&s=books&sr=1-1

The Trump Century: How Our President Changed the Course of History Forever by Lou Dobbs https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Century-President-Changed-History/dp/0063029049/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=trump&qid=1618926901&s=books&sr=1-9

Trump: America First: The President Succeeds Against All Odds by Corey R. Lewandowski https://www.amazon.com/Trump-America-President-Succeeds-Against/dp/1546084940/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

America First: Donald Trump's Presidential Speeches by Donald Trump https://www.amazon.com/America-First-Donald-Presidential-Speeches/dp/B08TQ478JG/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

As I commented, does Wikipedia want to be accurate or just serve up Trump hate candy and clueless opinions of how Trump supporters think and feel?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deplore This (talk • contribs)

I responded at User talk:Deplore This. See you there. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop trying to actively deadname SOPHIE in her article

I really don't know where you get off on this. There's a reason why her friends, family, fans, label, management, and herself decided to no longer market her deadname alongside the stylised 'SOPHIE" name. Your articles that you list in the talk page never put her deadname at the forefront of the article, and throughout all "SOPHIE" is the common moniker. 2601:204:CA01:A940:A55F:4BF9:E6DB:8B54 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The Madonna album credit lists only Samuel Long, with no Sophie mentioned. And that collaboration was a Big Deal.

You and I have different viewpoints. I think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whereby the reader can find answers to questions they have. You think Wikipedia should be a shield of protection against transphobia. The problem with your stance is that Sophie never expressed revulsion at the fact of the birth name; never got publicly angry at Madonna, for example, angry that Madonna credited Samuel Long and not Sophie on the album liner notes. Sophie never got publicly mad at Jeffrey Sfire for using he/him pronouns in 2014 and referring to Sophie as Samuel Long in this 2014 interview, two years after Sophie began using the Sophie moniker. (And Sfire was a very, very close collaborator.) There's no publicly known necessity to protect Sophie from the birth name which she used on all the song credits up to 2012 and on a few more through 2015. You are imagining a problem that is not known to exist. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That is your perspective; the perspective of some others is that WP editors should follow WP policies and guidelines. Newimpartial (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

We will always follow policies and guidelines. The guideline involved says "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name" then don't list that name. The point I'm arguing is that the name was indeed notable. Clearly, I'm following the guideline. Now if the guideline said "never argue for the notability of a deadname" then yes, I would be violating the guideline. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Just so that we are clear, I am not saying that when you make an argument for a certain interpretation of the facts, you are violating a guideline by making that argument. Rather, I am saying that what matters to me is that the guideline be followed as intended, and that your interpretation of the facts is not how Notability on WP actually works (you seem to be confusing it with Verifiability, as far as I can tell). Newimpartial (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

SAG Awards Trivia

Hey Binksternet,

I noticed you removed Trivia section for the SAG Female Actor award. This trivia is easily verified by comparing this Wiki to the Oscars Wiki, and the data in both are cited, so I don't think it falls under the reason you are deleting it. Since I read as long it is easily able to be verified, it doesn't need a proper citation. There are other pages that have similar trivia and I have just added on to it since I realised this page doesn't have it.

Masbond84 (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Masbond84

Take a look at the WP:SYNTH guideline. If you cite fact A and cite fact B then place them together to show a connection, the connection is a new element. The new element is a synthesis of two sources, and is a violation of WP:No original research.

Other pages with similar violations should be corrected. Binksternet (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Based on the examples in that page, it is saying that you are going on a conclusion by combining 2 different facts. The quote from the page "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." I am just merely putting the 2 facts and not concluding anything.

There was even a link to the actual Oscar pages that shows that particular fact, which is a citation. So, it is not a violation of the guideline. I look through Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not and it doesn't say what I am doing seems wrong. A lot of pages include data like this. This would only be a violation if I said that based on these data, I assume something else happened. But the info was all about facts like these people didn't win the Oscars. Not about saying why they didn't win the Oscars. This is the same type of trivia like which president serves two terms, or which World cup country didn't qualify for the next World Cup. It's just facts, not conclusion.

Masbond84 (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, we are talking about my removal of the unreferenced trivia section that compared SAG Awards with Academy Awards. The only reference in that article is SAG Awards official website. The SAG website does not talk about Academy Awards. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I actually linked the Wiki page to the [[[Award for Best Actress]]], which list all the Best actress winners and nominees and they have references for each year on that page. If you want to be particular about it, I will just include the references for each year on here instead. Masbond84 (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't tell what you are proposing. Please don't restore the comparisons between two awards unless you have a reference explicitly making the comparison. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your pruning on the Newgrounds page

While I added some stuff about Helluva Boss on Newgrounds some months ago (my only contribution to the page of yet), I'm totally ok with your recent pruning of that page, because it was definitely in bad shape. There's a bunch of articles I've found on a quick search on Google Scholar about Newgrounds I did this morning, so I might add some of those in for notability purposes. --Historyday01 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking around for WP:SECONDARY sources. The article was relying far too much on primary sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Finding some good scholarly articles out there, which is great to see. --Historyday01 (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)